Gary Supports a Smoking Ban in Private Restaurants

[GunnyFreedom]

Its funny. The milton friedman video you shared in the other thread regarding Gary Johnson and CO2 has the exact same Libertarian logic I tried to use recently regarding smoking bans. But I got criticized by ego-anarchists saying I didn't understand Libertarianism.

"Individuals should be held responsible for costs that they impose on others." - Milton Friedman

"The only case for government, is when it is not feasible for market arrangements to make individuals pay, compensate others for any harm they impose on them." - Milton Friedman

It's also funny, that after you posted that video, not a single post after that attempted to address the points raised by Milton Friedman.

The structure of your communication causes me mental pain and anguish. You owe me a million dollars. You can make the check payable to.....

 

[Natural Citizen]

Perhaps a clean sheet is needed, starting from the ground up, i.e., fundamental principles first and build on that?

Whatever happened with Bryan's framework dealio?

Yep. I think so.

In fact, I was just thinking about that framework the other day when one of these goof balls had mentioned to me that my intentions in being here will matter less in time, once action commences and that it would be a better guide on whether I was "with us, or against us" and that my continued thrashing of threads for the efforts to get Johnson elected will be considered mal-intent. Not partaking is different than sabotaging, he told me. I basically told hm to go hump himself. Heh.

Bryan has the right idea in doing that, though. It's the more practical way to go. Well, as far as here anyway. This platform, I mean.

 

[osan]

Nah, the sjws at least mean well even though they are misguided. They aren't running for personal gain like the neocons are.

Oh I disagree. Firstly, their intentions are irrelevant. Secondly, I see plenty of malice from that quarter. They are very fast to wish death and destruction upon all who fail to toe their line of nonsense. They have no personal grace whatsoever, and are dangerously stupid.

As for personal gain, you bet your itching asshole they are running for their own interests. That brand of ego knows nothing BUT self-absorption and aggrandizement. I believe the new term for their self-centered bullshit is "virtue signaling" or some such. These are the most singularly and repulsively dishonest people I have ever encountered in my entire life. They are not only as bad as neocons, they are worse. Get those people into positions of real political power and then sit back and watch the fun. Between the third-wave feminists who'd be cat-fighting each other for dibs on your balls which they would hang from their rear-view mirrors, to BLM schmucks who'd have you slaved out in penance, to the white-guilt crowd, safe-spacers, and so on down the revolting litany of brain-damaged idiots of that general ilk, you'd be pining away for the good old days of the lovely neocons who at least left you mostly alone so long as you paid your taxes without too much complaint.

Yes, the neos suck hemorrhoids, but they are as godly and saintly men when compared with the mindless, glaze-eyed viciousness of the SJW. The two cannot even be compared as they are in two completely disjoint classes. The SJWs in power would put Stalin and Mao to shame, for they are the logically absurd conclusion to which the left world-view had no choice but to lead.

 

[osan]

The LP is probably going to get the most votes ever and you want start over?

If Johnson is he best the LP could come up with, then you had best believe that my answer is an unequivocal...

 

[euphemia]

The LP is probably going to get the most votes ever and you want start over?

I would like to start. Full stop. There is no Libertarian Candidate. Gary Johnson is not a Libertarian.

 

[DamianTV]

Real Freedom would be the ability of Shop Owners to decide, not the Govt, not the local or federal bureaucrats, not Crony Capitalists, not the Marxists or SJW Pansies, the fucking shop owners. When one can not decree what shall and shall not happen on their own property, then it is no longer their property, and the people are no longer free. Private Property is the foundation upon which personal freedom is built, and to dictate what someone else can and can not do on that property is a violation of that persons property rights and liberty itself.

 

[Nils Dacke]

Nobody is saying he is the perfect candidate. All these threads about some pet issue you don't like with Johnson are counterproductive, he isn't going to be potus, we all know that. He is at least a decent person and not a criminal like Clinton and Trump. His candidacy advances a decent 3rd party and you all should support him for that reason alone

Joining a site like this one, I'd thought it be a community grown immune to lesser of X evils reasoning. Apparently not so, judging from the arguments in the different Johnson threads. Voting the lesser evil does little in the long run but to reinforce whatever processs or system which produced the evil to begin with. The world isn't coming to an end with this election cycle outcome, yet how horrible the major candidates might be - and if it did, it would be more of a call to arms than a call to the voting booths.

If Johnson wants to pander to 'pragmatic' moderates of various centrist flavours, which he obviously wants, let them have him. The more important for principled libertarians to show there's a living, viable movement beyond him - that libertarianism doesn't end with shallow weed legalization and 'social liberalism, fiscal conservatism' but is a whole, attractive philosophy based in consistent freedom and self-ownership for both bakers and butt buddies.

The only way for political change to come, is to change the political stance of people. Not gain their vote by adapting to their current stance - holding office on such mandate leaves little room for actual change. That's why it's important not to succumb to the ultimatum of the lesser of X evils hostage situation, whereby a politician force you to get on board with their views. That only shifts the political spectrum the wrong way. Let's reverse the roles and put the ultimatum on people like Johnson: Either figure out a way to run an attractive campaign to newcomers without compromising the fundamental principles of liberty, or have us vote someone actually principaled and libertyloving like Castle.

Voting the greater good shifts the overton window in the right way over time and forces politicians to adapt to each and everyone whom we sway by our philosophy. Voting the lesser evil shifts the overton window the wrong way over time and removes the attractive position of arguing from a consequent, logical philosophy to that of trying to appeal to - reinforcing - their already existing views with a bland wishwashy mess of a stance. That's far more important in the long run than stopping Clinton (or Trump), even more important than seizing this change of getting into the debates, reaching the 5% needed for increased funding and all those arguments being thrown around. Being from another country than the USA, which you've probably already understood from my somewhat flawed English, it's just amazing how this golden opportunity you have in voting for people actually principaled and libertyloving rooted in your rich foundation upon freedom - and yet many decides to go with someone as bland and inconsistent as Johnson.

 

[TheTexan]

Nobody is saying he is the perfect candidate. All these threads about some pet issue you don't like with Johnson are counterproductive, he isn't going to be potus, we all know that. He is at least a decent person and not a criminal like Clinton and Trump. His candidacy advances a decent 3rd party and you all should support him for that reason alone

A 3rd party might be pretty cool. We would have a third choice, in addition to the two choices we have already.

But it would also make voting way harder than it is already. With 3 parties you have much higher chance of wasting your vote, if your candidate loses.

Something to think about.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Joining a site like this one, I'd thought it be a community grown immune to lesser of X evils reasoning. Apparently not so, judging from the arguments in the different Johnson threads. Voting the lesser evil does little in the long run but to reinforce whatever processs or system which produced the evil to begin with. The world isn't coming to an end with this election cycle outcome, yet how horrible the major candidates might be - and if it did, it would be more of a call to arms than a call to the voting booths.

For many people, the world will end depending on the outcome of this election cycle. If you mean it more literally, that the world is literally going to end depending on the election outcome, it is a pretty safe bet we will have already been a group that got the axe... quite possibly literally.

Maybe it is an unpopular position here, but when the lesser X will prevent the death of 1,000's of lives, the destruction of countries both by war and the ensuing flight from war, the incarceration of numerous more innocent lives, and as a cherry on top, will reduce tax and regulatory burden, I will gladly accept.

A government doing less harm is good. Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm, is good.

Why do you value higher voting on principle over the death of 1,000's of lives, the destruction of countries both by war and the ensuing flight from war, the incarceration of numerous more innocent lives? Or is that not a consideration for you? It is just principled or not... you don't even look to see what the different outcomes would be?

I agree with you to a point about 'holding out your vote'. A couple percentage points tax decrease or a few regulations doesn't necessarily warrant caving. But when we are talking about lives? and 1000's of lives at that?

I'm sure your familiar with the golden rule, what would your wishes be if a foreign government was ravaging your land causing death and destruction with war, and the voters of that foreign government had a candidate with a path to victory that intended to end to the warfare? Would you hope that they would vote for him?

And didn't Castle say that he'd leave at the Gitmo prisoners in prison forever, because they had been in there to long? Does that principle extend to individual's held in domestic prisons? Is it a principle at all? Is it consistent?

 

[69360]

If Johnson is he best the LP could come up with, then you had best believe that my answer is an unequivocal...

I would like to start. Full stop. There is no Libertarian Candidate. Gary Johnson is not a Libertarian.

People like the two of you will never be effective in politics.

Joining a site like this one, I'd thought it be a community grown immune to lesser of X evils reasoning. Apparently not so, judging from the arguments in the different Johnson threads. Voting the lesser evil does little in the long run but to reinforce whatever processs or system which produced the evil to begin with. The world isn't coming to an end with this election cycle outcome, yet how horrible the major candidates might be - and if it did, it would be more of a call to arms than a call to the voting booths.

If Johnson wants to pander to 'pragmatic' moderates of various centrist flavours, which he obviously wants, let them have him. The more important for principled libertarians to show there's a living, viable movement beyond him - that libertarianism doesn't end with shallow weed legalization and 'social liberalism, fiscal conservatism' but is a whole, attractive philosophy based in consistent freedom and self-ownership for both bakers and butt buddies.

The only way for political change to come, is to change the political stance of people. Not gain their vote by adapting to their current stance - holding office on such mandate leaves little room for actual change. That's why it's important not to succumb to the ultimatum of the lesser of X evils hostage situation, whereby a politician force you to get on board with their views. That only shifts the political spectrum the wrong way. Let's reverse the roles and put the ultimatum on people like Johnson: Either figure out a way to run an attractive campaign to newcomers without compromising the fundamental principles of liberty, or have us vote someone actually principaled and libertyloving like Castle.

Voting the greater good shifts the overton window in the right way over time and forces politicians to adapt to each and everyone whom we sway by our philosophy. Voting the lesser evil shifts the overton window the wrong way over time and removes the attractive position of arguing from a consequent, logical philosophy to that of trying to appeal to - reinforcing - their already existing views with a bland wishwashy mess of a stance. That's far more important in the long run than stopping Clinton (or Trump), even more important than seizing this change of getting into the debates, reaching the 5% needed for increased funding and all those arguments being thrown around. Being from another country than the USA, which you've probably already understood from my somewhat flawed English, it's just amazing how this golden opportunity you have in voting for people actually principaled and libertyloving rooted in your rich foundation upon freedom - and yet many decides to go with someone as bland and inconsistent as Johnson.

Johnson isn't evil. Sure the guy is a little goofy and probably doesn't give the most concise interviews. But he's not a crook like the 2 major party candidates.

A 3rd party might be pretty cool. We would have a third choice, in addition to the two choices we have already.

But it would also make voting way harder than it is already. With 3 parties you have much higher chance of wasting your vote, if your candidate loses.

Something to think about.

Assuming a strong third party it would also lower the threshold for a decent candidate to win.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

69360 asserts: People like the two of you will never be effective in politics.

(honest 'politics' amounts to nothing more or less than 'a competition of ideas about government'..you republicrats will note that in honest competitions the actions of the participants are first and foremost and the actions of the announcers, cheerleaders, etc., are secondary to the event..your stinking rotten republicrat political 'competitions' (charades) have it perfectly arse-backwards...(cheerleaders/announcers primary, participants secondary) exposing a fraud about which you and the rest of your rip van winkle republicrats are apparently oblivious...(certainly silent)

...so to say someone 'will never be effective in [this rotten stinking $election that republicrat dolts call] politics' could be the best of compliments...as wise, honest people VERY VERY rarely achieve office...only your miserable puppets whom are no threat to this miserable exi$ting order...

...(yikes!!!...this mainefolk seems to have an awfully high opinion of him/her/it self for someone who cheerleads for puppets!)

...btw, this year has been, by FAR, the most fun i've ever had in 'politics'...for many reasons...but if the LP had nominated ron paul and say, jesse ventura instead of johnson/weld...why i don't think my old heart could've stood it!..

 

[Natural Citizen]

Time to resume Operation Rep Burn.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm, is good.

Then why are you organizing for a leader who contends that he'd do the ultimate harm? Hm? Why? Why do you hate freedom, P3ter_Griffin?

I don't believe that you hate it. I really don't. I think that you just don't really understand it. Respectfully. Because if you did, then, you wouldn't be organizing for a leader whose open contention is to reject Individual Liberty's principal support. Which, btw, deeems his contention a patent rejection of the concept of Individual Liberty fully.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm, is good.

Then why are you organizing for a leader who contends that he'd do the ultimate harm? Hm? Why? Why do you hate freedom, P3ter_Griffin?

It's all good. As long as we keep putting the truth out there. That's all that matters.

It's a given that the truth won't be welcomed by deceivers. Is what it is. Truth is treason in the empire of lies. Right?

If your idea of 'Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm' is 'putting the truth out there. That's all that matters.', I guess we just have different ideas of what 'Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm' is.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If your idea of 'Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm' is 'putting the truth out there. That's all that matters.', I guess we just have different ideas of what 'Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm' is.

People need to see liberty things. They need to hear liberty perspectives. They need to understand what Individual liberty is. It's the only way they'll ever know when a liberal like the one you're organizing for is acting aggressive toward it.

P3ter_Griffin, you're in The Minority here. By a long shot.

What's kind of disturbing here is your response. You just demonstrated that you have no idea what you were arguing against when you quoted me here. No idea. Phhheeeew. Right over your head.

RonPaulInstitute made an excellent point earlier. I'll share it with you. He's correct in his assessment. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ul-Institute&p=6293786&viewfull=1#post6293786

 

[osan]

People like the two of you will never be effective in politics.

You say this as if it were a bad thing.

Johnson isn't evil.

Perhaps not by your standards. By mine, however, he most certainly is. I don't give a hoot about his intentions no matter how holy they may be. All that I have to go on are the things he says, particularly in the absence of any further knowledge. He says patently and dangerously objectionable things, any one of which indicates to me his lack of fitness for the post. Given the litany of his toxic spew, I shall happily bequeath him to you in my will.

Sure the guy is a little goofy and probably doesn't give the most concise interviews. But he's not a crook like the 2 major party candidates.

By his own words he would steal some of my rights. ∴ he is a thief.

QED

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

People need to see liberty things. They need to hear liberty perspectives. They need to understand what Individual liberty is. It's the only way they'll ever know when a liberal like the one you're organizing for is coming for it.

P3ter_Griffin, you're in The Minority here. By a long shot.

What's even more comical is that you just demonstrated that you have no idea what you were arguing against when you quoted me here. No idea. Phhheeeew. Right over your head.

Being in the minority is not necessarily a bad thing.

I didn't come to where I am today, my understanding of liberty that is, from where it was when I first got attracted (no ****) to Ron. The greatest benefit I received from Ron is probably the community that formed to support him, that being RPF... I didn't do dailypaul or what have you. To me I came in with the thoughts 'who is going to feed the poor people if the government ain't', and shit like that. I really got my start wondering why the fuck some people would fly planes into a tower. Learned about American FP history from 'The Imperial Cruise' (turn of the 20th century) and skipped to learning about our dealings with the muslim world and about some of the groups. And so I saw the government as a monster, just not in the sense that I see it as a monster today. I don't know it for a fact, but I think for most people it has to be a progression. They are not going to wake up one day hating government after having loved government the last, short of traumatization by the government.

 

[Natural Citizen]

By his own words he would steal some of my rights.

Some? Phhht. Try ALL of them. Once you reject property rights, you're effectively rejecting the entire concept of Individul Liberty.
This is a communist philosophy. Property rights, as you know, are the principal support for The Individual's right to both Life and Liberty.

 

[Nils Dacke]

For many people, the world will end depending on the outcome of this election cycle. If you mean it more literally, that the world is literally going to end depending on the election outcome, it is a pretty safe bet we will have already been a group that got the axe... quite possibly literally.

Maybe it is an unpopular position here, but when the lesser X will prevent the death of 1,000's of lives, the destruction of countries both by war and the ensuing flight from war, the incarceration of numerous more innocent lives, and as a cherry on top, will reduce tax and regulatory burden, I will gladly accept.

A government doing less harm is good. Taking the steps to ensure your government will do the least harm, is good.

Why do you value higher voting on principle over the death of 1,000's of lives, the destruction of countries both by war and the ensuing flight from war, the incarceration of numerous more innocent lives? Or is that not a consideration for you? It is just principled or not... you don't even look to see what the different outcomes would be?

I agree with you to a point about 'holding out your vote'. A couple percentage points tax decrease or a few regulations doesn't necessarily warrant caving. But when we are talking about lives? and 1000's of lives at that?

I'm sure your familiar with the golden rule, what would your wishes be if a foreign government was ravaging your land causing death and destruction with war, and the voters of that foreign government had a candidate with a path to victory that intended to end to the warfare? Would you hope that they would vote for him?

And didn't Castle say that he'd leave at the Gitmo prisoners in prison forever, because they had been in there to long? Does that principle extend to individual's held in domestic prisons? Is it a principle at all? Is it consistent?

You're putting it as a variant to the trolley problem. Passively allow the greater evil to speed down its path towards thousands of deaths and all kinds of misery, or actively cast a vote for the lesser evil to change the path into some lesser infringements of another group of innocent people. Ultimately, when are the consequences so sever our principles must be sacrificed? Yes, taken to the very extreme, I and probably most libertarians agree such conditions can exist. It would be dishonest to say anything else. Inversely, there's no point in rejecting a candidate for the tiniest of flaw or deviation from what we percieve as a 100% non-aggresing stance.

With that said, are the consequences involved here remotely close to justify abandoning the principles? Is Johnson/Weld all one could realisticly hope for, with just a few flaws? No. I too feel the horror of all the misery that American interventonism has created. My country is under enormous strain from the burden put upon us by the huge inflow of migrants and refugees, and I have no problems imagine what sufferings the middle east is having. I would most certainly wish for anything or anyone that would ease the conflict as soon as possible if I'd be unfortunate enough to having been born into the region. Taken at face value, i do believe most people intuitively wants to save lives when put against some theoretical principles, the same way people wants to pragmatically save the 10 lives in the trolley problem than just 1 life and a principaled set of ethics. Let's be clear about what's at stake here though. The actual comparision isn't a thousand lives against lofty ideals and theoretical principles. It's thousands of lives now stacked against an unmeasurable more lives lost in the future.

What created this situation we have now to begin with? The disregard for those principles of self-ownership and individual liberty. Until those principles of freedom reigns, we will have war in one way or another and people will die or have their lives restricted. From direct violence to indirect economic suboptimal growth. The sacrifices of the outcome of this election cycle most probably will bring, yet how terrible they are, quickly diminishes when compared to the misery of all the coming election cycles where individual liberty still is a non-issue. The only relevant question must in the end be, do Johnson sway people into our philosophy of freedom? I don't think he is. Johnson is a symptom reliever, but he's not advancing any cure to the root causes. At the very essence of his campaign is the notion that your country can't be run on those principles, that they don't mean much to him at all and therefore shouldn't do to those he's pandering to. That's the message him constantly violating these principles sends. Johnson wakes up a sentiment of non-aggression already present in most people but he isn't swaying them to make it a principle to apply consistently making infringements of peoples rights still left to the arbitrary popularity of the present day for such actions.

When Johnson thinks it's morally justifiable to send armed men to combat people who won't bake cakes domestically, what says he one day can't apply the same justifications to send armed men to combat people abroad who are doing much worse things than merely withholding gay people their private services? From a libertarian perspective I see little moral difference. Sure, international wars are unpopular, and rightly so, but if that changes someone like Johnson has little ground to argue why it's wrong with no principles to fall back on, and i'm not sure he will even attempt it. Because that's what I feel the Johnson/Weld campaign is constantly signaling - "Hey, we want to extend the rights in areas we like, such as weed and LGBT, but we're much more reluctant to do the same to people we're not fans of - religious people, gun owners, smokers and so on." That's not a liberty message, that's merely self-interest and putting oneself above others in the rights department.

Could he still act as a 'gateway drug' to a principled liberty movement? Maybe, but not through himself or his campaign. Instead, we could use him. His campaign is sure to expose a lot of moderates to our views, and we can use it to further our causes, absolutely. But that depends on us supporting our cause, not Johnsons, having an active, viable movement - which takes all our efforts, resources and support aimed our own way. The last thing we should do then is to cave in to support a lesser evil. Just compare how the ancap community feeds off the broader influx to the libertarian camp, while still championing their own ideals.

Johnson for moderates, libertarians for libertarians.

 

[Bman]

Pro-Liberty Positions:

• end the fed, return to gold standard
• balance the budget through spending cuts
• replace all existing taxes with single FairTax
• abolish Dept. of Education
• opposes all business subsidies
• opposed TARP
• opposed auto company bailouts
• opposes Keynesian stimulus spending
• opposed Obamacare
• opposed the Medicare Part D expansion under Bush
• favors cutting social security, medicare, and medicaid
• opposes labor unions
• wants to eliminate the minimum wage
• opposes immigration restrictions/deportation
• favors tree trade, opposes tariffs
• opposes governmental regulation of internet
• opposes PATRIOT Act and NSA spying
• opposed Iraq and Libya Wars
• opposes involvement in Syria Civil War
• opposes involvement in Ukraine Civil War
• favors immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan
• favors cuts in defense spending
• supports 2nd Amendment
• opposes War on Drugs
• favors legalization of assisted suicide

Anti-Liberty Positions

• favors extension of the Civil Rights Act to gays
• favors smoking ban in private venues

Close enough

Pretty much. A "perfect Libertarian" would never run for office.