Gary Supports a Smoking Ban in Private Restaurants

[Occam's Banana]

Nah, the sjws at least mean well [...]

No they don't. They want power and they mean to have it - and use it ...

Their "social justice" bullshit is just rhetorical cover. They don't give a damn about "justice" of any kind.

Some of their dupes might, in a vague and mawkish sort of way, but they are just ballast.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions by useful idiots."

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

Hell, no!! Onward and upward!! William Weld 2020!!

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

Oh noes!! Please doan' throw us in dat brier patch, Br'er Fox!!

 

[Occam's Banana]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Nils Dacke again.

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.

 

[Suzanimal]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Nils Dacke again.

Covered.

 

[specsaregood]

Hell, no!! Onward and upward!! William Weld 2020!!

Its sadly amusing that in the space of a few years we have gone from running fairly "radical" libertarians as Republicans in order to get them elected, to running moderate Republicans as Libertarians in order to get election welfare and ballot access or something.

 

[undergroundrr]

You're putting it as a variant to the trolley problem...
Johnson for moderates, libertarians for libertarians.

Wow, it's nice to hear somebody make a reasoned and civil critique of Johnson instead of calling everybody cultural Marxists and property grabbers. You're ABSOLUTELY right about Johnson for moderates. Thank you! Finally somebody gets it. He is not playing to Ron Paul Forums.

It sounds like you're talking about Johnson as though he's on an educational campaign. No, Ron Paul was on an educational campaign. Johnson is truly trying to form realistic political coalitions in a bid to change the visibility and status of the LP. A successful political candidate CANNOT preach ironclad libertarian principles in America in 2016 and have any success whatsoever.

Gary Johnson tells progressives about the NAP on national TV. He also told Eric Bolling why black lives matter on national TV. He's also told hardcore libertarians he supports public accommodation in principle. This tells me he's an honest guy who is not playing to an audience. He's actually challenging everyone he encounters, especially libertarians to not be too comfortable in their particular ideological shell.

The easily triggered will not support Gary Johnson. They and the trumpies will start a new thread on RPF about every Johnson "misstep" to bob at the top of the forum along with the trump support threads.

But off of RPF, in the wide world, those moderates who are open to short-term practical thinking probably like hearing Johnson say he'll read a trade deal before he signs it, that he wants to work in concert with establishment democrats and republicans at the top level, that there might be a need for a government role in pollution control in a corporatist economy.

He's gained such traction that Bill Kristol felt he needed to field McMullin to make damn well sure we don't have a viable non-neocon party in 2020. I'm very, very sad that seems to be working. I wish it bothered others here also. Regardless, I say great job Gary Johnson.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

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.

So what you are saying is, sometimes you should vote for the lesser of evil. Why is this not such a case? And is your metric the standard bearer? Someone who holds their nose when you do not is 'letting perfect be the enemy of good', and someone who casts their vote when you will not is 'appeasing moderates'? What is your metric, where is that line? Is it based off of lives, issues, what?

There is literally no support for his poor policies here. No one has said we should start championing smoking bans and co2 taxes. How do you expect we would get any of his moderates over here to be moulded when we are not actively engaging the community that supports him, and were one show up by chance it would very much appear this is a board that supports Trump-- the members that is. What reason would they have to stay to listen to what we have to say?

To me this is much less about growing the movement, although when I think about it it could very well function that way (the presence of liberty members helping GJ supporters learn the ropes of activism), it is about preventing harm.

If we do look at Gary's positions, I frankly don't know them well, but is he not indeed pushing issues that are not main stream? End the Fed? I'm tempted to look back through the candidates RPF has supported over the years to see how 'close enough' was close enough in the past. But it is a waste of time, as is continuing this discussion.

 

[osan]

Some? Phhht. Try ALL of them.

That may be true, but I can only go on what I have heard and read. Besides, it is irrelevant whether it is one right or all of them because the moment you concede the one, you have in principle conceded them all.

If Johnson were the perfect candidate in my eyes save for his expressed intention of removing the 2A from the Constitution, he would likely not have my vote.

Once you reject property rights, you're effectively rejecting the entire concept of Individul [sic] Liberty.

In truth, yes. But in Theire minds, not necessarily. People come to believe all manner of idiocies.

At some point, truth becomes less important than what people believe to be true. Here I speak in purely pragmatic terms.

This is a communist philosophy. Property rights, as you know, are the principal support for The Individual's right to both Life and Liberty.

Perhaps more broadly stated, it is a criminalistic, despotic authoritarian philosophy. At its heart, it is little different from the caprice-driven kings of yore, not to mention emperors such as Caligula.

 

[Nils Dacke]

Wow, it's nice to hear somebody make a reasoned and civil critique of Johnson instead of calling everybody cultural Marxists and property grabbers. You're ABSOLUTELY right about Johnson for moderates. Thank you! Finally somebody gets it. He is not playing to Ron Paul Forums.

 

It sounds like you're talking about Johnson as though he's on an educational campaign. No, Ron Paul was on an educational campaign. Johnson is truly trying to form realistic political coalitions in a bid to change the visibility and status of the LP. A successful political candidate CANNOT preach ironclad libertarian principles in America in 2016 and have any success whatsoever.

Gary Johnson tells progressives about the NAP on national TV. He also told Eric Bolling why black lives matter on national TV. He's also told hardcore libertarians he supports public accommodation in principle. This tells me he's an honest guy who is not playing to an audience. He's actually challenging everyone he encounters, especially libertarians to not be too comfortable in their particular ideological shell.

The easily triggered will not support Gary Johnson. They and the trumpies will start a new thread on RPF about every Johnson "misstep" to bob at the top of the forum along with the trump support threads.

But off of RPF, in the wide world, those moderates who are open to short-term practical thinking probably like hearing Johnson say he'll read a trade deal before he signs it, that he wants to work in concert with establishment democrats and republicans at the top level, that there might be a need for a government role in pollution control in a corporatist economy.

He's gained such traction that Bill Kristol felt he needed to field McMullin to make damn well sure we don't have a viable non-neocon party in 2020. I'm very, very sad that seems to be working. I wish it bothered others here also. Regardless, I say great job Gary Johnson.

Those were kind words to start off with. Thanks! I have nothing against Johnson running his campaign to his audience, in no way is it bad that he makes moderates choose him over their usual choice of lesser of two evils. The fewer people caving in to politicians to the authoritarian side of themselves, the better. I just don't believe it will further the cause towards my (our?) side of Johnson by supporting him in compare to investing ourselves and voting for something closer to us. The marginal value of a vote does decrease with every extra one, and we're most probably not gonna be the tip of the scale when if we even are to weigh in things as the 5% funding threshold.

I have grown to understand over the years that you Americans tend to use the concept of distinguishing between educational and trying-to-win (or gain a base) campaigns. I just cannot accept the validity or relevance of such concept, and believe me I've tried. I do not believe anyone holding elected office have much room at all in the end to actually drive political change over the long run. Rather whatever room for change they have is a mere reflection of already occured changes in the electorate, and by then it's not so much room for change as a path they have to go down. Ofcourse factored in with some special and other interestes behind the curtains, but that's another issue. That's why i believe substantial political change can only come from how the candidates - and everyone else influencing people - change peoples minds, not by winning or losing the actual office one ran for.

So what you are saying is, sometimes you should vote for the lesser of evil.

 

Why is this not such a case? And is your metric the standard bearer? Someone who holds their nose when you do not is 'letting perfect be the enemy of good', and someone who casts their vote when you will not is 'appeasing moderates'? What is your metric, where is that line? Is it based off of lives, issues, what?

There is literally no support for his poor policies here. No one has said we should start championing smoking bans and co2 taxes. How do you expect we would get any of his moderates over here to be moulded when we are not actively engaging the community that supports him, and were one show up by chance it would very much appear this is a board that supports Trump-- the members that is. What reason would they have to stay to listen to what we have to say?

To me this is much less about growing the movement, although when I think about it it could very well function that way (the presence of liberty members helping GJ supporters learn the ropes of activism), it is about preventing harm.

If we do look at Gary's positions, I frankly don't know them well, but is he not indeed pushing issues that are not main stream? End the Fed? I'm tempted to look back through the candidates RPF has supported over the years to see how 'close enough' was close enough in the past. But it is a waste of time, as is continuing this discussion.

You've read me correct, there aresome extreme situations where I'd be willing to accept a lesser of evils argument, the same way there are some few extreme situations where I'm willing to abandon the NAP. To make an extreme, obvious example: Candidate A running on the promise to nuke the whole world to oblivion, assuming he could actually go through with it if winning, and candidate B running on a completly ideal libertarian platform except for a gimmick that he'll once tax a randomly selected citizen 1￠. It would not be honest to pretend I'm not utilitarian in that sense that there comes an extreme point where the consequences outweigh, just for the sake of coming of as rhetorically stronger not having to conced such conditions exists. I just believe in the extreme importances of those princples to such extent I place such extreme situation much further away than what we've got with Johnson. This does not mean I'm refraining from saying I belive in the non-aggresion principle or - which i view as a subsection of it - reject the notion of lesser of two evils arguments, because for many if not close to most all actual real situations those extreme situations where I change is not near the table of discussion.

Exactly where such line is to be drawn, I believe has to be judged with such subtle nuances and complexity one could not capture nor convey it precise enough with the limits and stiffness inherent in language and words. Atleast I'm nowhere near being such wordsmith, maybe somewhere else someone has or one day will be able to make something of it. It's a judgment ultimatly up to each and every libertarian for themselves to make, I do not get from where you're reading in me thinking I'm above anyone else or being a standard bearer on this. I'm obviously not, but as with anything, I will ofcourse argue my views on the matter.

I simply believe our resources are wasted supporting this temporary prevention of harm, if we agree Johnson would be that in compare to the rest, when we could channelize it all into promoting an actual permanent solution to the sickness: principled libertarianism. I most certainly believe we should engage his audience, and I see no reason why we would have to pose or actually support Johnson to be able to do so. Ancap people have no problems seeking out minarchists to engage in debate and discussions, without caving in to support a small state. If don't wanna engage in this forum, then we'll just go wherever they are for those kinds of discussions and leave this a place for, as i understand the site mission, build support around fellow libertarians. Johnson will do just fine even without our support, shocking as it might be to think, but the principled libertarianism not so much if all of us already on board with it starts diverting our time and energy to promoting anything less.

Lastly, I'm as saddened as you in seeing the issues with Trump-supporters here. I see that as a problem not so much in regards to Gary Johnson newcomers but as to the board as such, seeing as - from what i understand - its rules and very purpose are against promoting candidates not having been vetted or has failed the process. What seems to be a very real issue here still, and which is why I think much care is needed when going into promote people rather than ideas, is how the support for Johnson turns into too easy of a dismissal of serious liberty issues. When one joins the supporting team of a candidate, it's nothing but human how our strong biases tends to take over and make us see past their very real errors. People might not support the worse parts of Johnson/Welds candidacy, but many most certainly downplays them in a way dangerous to our long time cause. Being new, i have nothing of value to say about how the scrutiny Johnson is under fares in compare to others earlier.

 

[Natural Citizen]

That may be true, but I can only go on what I have heard and read. Besides, it is irrelevant whether it is one right or all of them because the moment you concede the one, you have in principle conceded them all.

If Johnson were the perfect candidate in my eyes save for his expressed intention of removing the 2A from the Constitution, he would likely not have my vote.



In truth, yes. But in Theire minds, not necessarily. People come to believe all manner of idiocies.

At some point, truth becomes less important than what people believe to be true. Here I speak in purely pragmatic terms.



Perhaps more broadly stated, it is a criminalistic, despotic authoritarian philosophy. At its heart, it is little different from the caprice-driven kings of yore, not to mention emperors such as Caligula.

You know, that's a pretty deep rabbit hole. Even in the most simplistic of language, the fact that it really is criminalistic in the most fundmental/confounding of ways opens up an entirely different context. Or dialogue. I mean, you get back to fundamental human relations there in terms of establishing the terms of lawfulness and legalities.

Anyway. Yeah. Agreed...

 

[osan]

Johnson is truly trying to form realistic political coalitions in a bid to change the visibility and status of the LP. A successful political candidate CANNOT preach ironclad libertarian principles in America in 2016 and have any success whatsoever.

Then perhaps he should hold his yap on matters that result in auto-assassination. And how is it he picked an apparent gun-grabbing idiot as a running mate?

I don't care if he's Jesus tap-dancing across the seven seas. His rhetoric is lousy and it is the only thing on which most of us have to base our assessments. In favor of a basic wage for all, regardless whether they work? How, exactly, does that speak to liberty when men with guns are ordering you to open your wallet and start shelling?

He is no libertarian. He is either pandering or he is one of those milquetoasts who want freedom sans the costs of being free. Defend him all you like. Until someone demonstrates to me that he is either honest or not an imbecile, I will continue to hold him as a discount commodity.

The easily triggered will not support Gary Johnson.

Oh, boo-hiss. This brand of cheap innuendo is pure FAIL. Attempting to link those who are not so easily fooled by the inept or the snake-oilers with the generation of millennial pansies gets nothing better than a hard face-plant.

They and the trumpies will start a new thread on RPF about every Johnson "misstep" to bob at the top of the forum along with the trump support threads.

Perhaps it's just me, but I do not recall any particularly strong outpouring of love for the Donald here, neither have I seen too many Trump threads, period.... much less those sucking on Little Donald.

But off of RPF, in the wide world, those moderates who are open to short-term practical thinking probably like hearing Johnson say he'll read a trade deal before he signs it, that he wants to work in concert with establishment democrats and republicans at the top level, that there might be a need for a government role in pollution control in a corporatist economy.

You really don't seem to get the salient point underlying this whole political thing. It is not enough to do the sorts of things you list. You must also do no harm. All my saving of lives does not render excusable, much less valid, my jaunts into the darkness as a serial murderer or a child-rapist. The Prime Directive of proper political behavior is the same as that for the physician: DO NO HARM. I have yet to see a single candidate who satisfies the maxim. Men like Goldwater and Ron Paul met that requirement. One is long dead and the other too old.

I fully believe that one can come to certain practical arrangements without violating the Prime Directive. Perhaps I am mistaken. If so, then truly we have but one remedy left to us.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Osan,

You are given a magic button.

Pressing this button will have the following effects:

• the Fed will be abolished and the US will return to the gold standard
• federal spending will be cut by 43%
• all current US wars will end and no new wars will be started
• the PATRIOT Act will be repealed
• the federal war on drugs will end
• the Civil Rights Act will be extended to gays

Do you press the button?

 

[Origanalist]

Osan,

You are given a magic button.

Pressing this button will have the following effects:

• the Fed will be abolished and the US will return to the gold standard
• federal spending will be cut by 43%
• all current US wars will end and no new wars will be started
• the PATRIOT Act will be repealed
• the federal war on drugs will end
• the Civil Rights Act will be extended to gays

Do you press the button?

Are you having visions r3v? Maybe you've been eating some of these buttons?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...

 

[euphemia]

I would like to choose a Libertarian, but thanks to major party politics, he won't be on the ballot in every state. Libertarians have not put up a Libertarian for president, and I will never, ever, ever vote for Gary Johnson. He is not a Libertarian.

 

[osan]

You know, that's a pretty deep rabbit hole. Even in the most simplistic of language, the fact that it really is criminalistic in the most fundmental/confounding of ways opens up an entirely different context. Or dialogue. I mean, you get back to fundamental human relations there in terms of establishing the terms of lawfulness and legalities.

And THAT is where men need to live their lives, minute by minute. The moment it is no longer important enough to be a basic and conscious decision element of every quantum of one's praxis, he has lost respect for his fellows in some manner and degree. This is not to say that one wrings his hands over every nit of his daily minutiae, for obviously our lives would become untenably bogged down with the overhead of what would clearly be a severe neurosis. But the general habit of consideration for others should be second nature. The more significant the decision at hand in terms of potential effects upon others, the greater should be the deliberation on the issue.

If I casually take a stick of my friend's chewing gum as I often do ( I despise chewing gum, just for the record), I need not sit for years contemplating the possible effects my choice may have upon my friend and, perhaps, world peace. But if I'm going to pull the trigger on my rifle, I damned better be certain that he is not downrange of my fire and that he is ready for the concussion of the muzzle blast, and so forth. And this should be a concern NOT because of the potential legal consequences, were I to accidentally send him to Jesus. This would seem as the most basic common sense, and yet the political devolution of humanity during the twentieth century, directly proportional to the rise of the modern nation-state, has rendered a vast plurality of humans either oblivious to it, or simply decayed to the point that they could care less.

Without those fundamentals as one's second nature, I confidently assert that the rest becomes tenuous at best and more likely meaningless because without that sound and unwavering foundation, the basics of human relations becomes essentially negotiable from one moment to the next. This is one area where the Framers of the Constitution erred wildly, what with incorporating instruments by which the most basic fabric of the society could be altered if "the people" so chose at some time in the future. I can call such a flaw nothing better than pure buggery. It is an error so profoundly idiotic as to leave me doubting that they could have made it accidentally.

Along with language skills, the basics of proper human relations should occupy center-stage in one's education such that by the time he graduates high school he is the functional equivalent of a PhD on the topic. Without such knowledge, the race of men is doomed and I offer the world as we find it this very hour as my proof positive of the central importance of such developed skill, as well as the proper attitude for approaching its daily application.

Furthermore, it is one thing for the dregs to show a profound absence of such knowledge. It is something very different when the highest elected officials of the nation think and behave with equally ham-fisted and blindly ignorant boorishness.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Hear Hear. I was just thinking about this very thing when I was over in the religion section and they brought up Romans 13 to justify submitting to tyrants in the name of God. Particularly with regard to its relevance in that last sentence in your post here. I'm pretty sure I don't want to bow and submit to anti-moral men who have power and who use that power at their whim as far as what they arbitrarily think the common good means. I won't take the time to respond to all of this but I'll note it and agree. Good post, osan.

 

[osan]

Osan,

You are given a magic button.

Pressing this button will have the following effects:

• the Fed will be abolished and the US will return to the gold standard
• federal spending will be cut by 43%
• all current US wars will end and no new wars will be started
• the PATRIOT Act will be repealed
• the federal war on drugs will end
• the Civil Rights Act will be extended to gays

Do you press the button?

Without understanding the radiating effects, nope. Unlike many people, I am not THAT KIND of sucker. I am, unfortunately, a great big sucker for little girls. I have no power over them.

Your question presupposes the tacit "rightness" of the top five bullets. They certainly SEEM desirable, but unlike Faust I am leery of selling my soul to the devil.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

You've read me correct, there aresome extreme situations where I'd be willing to accept a lesser of evils argument, the same way there are some few extreme situations where I'm willing to abandon the NAP. To make an extreme, obvious example: Candidate A running on the promise to nuke the whole world to oblivion, assuming he could actually go through with it if winning, and candidate B running on a completly ideal libertarian platform except for a gimmick that he'll once tax a randomly selected citizen 1￠. It would not be honest to pretend I'm not utilitarian in that sense that there comes an extreme point where the consequences outweigh, just for the sake of coming of as rhetorically stronger not having to conced such conditions exists. I just believe in the extreme importances of those princples to such extent I place such extreme situation much further away than what we've got with Johnson. This does not mean I'm refraining from saying I belive in the non-aggresion principle or - which i view as a subsection of it - reject the notion of lesser of two evils arguments, because for many if not close to most all actual real situations those extreme situations where I change is not near the table of discussion.

Exactly where such line is to be drawn, I believe has to be judged with such subtle nuances and complexity one could not capture nor convey it precise enough with the limits and stiffness inherent in language and words. Atleast I'm nowhere near being such wordsmith, maybe somewhere else someone has or one day will be able to make something of it. It's a judgment ultimatly up to each and every libertarian for themselves to make, I do not get from where you're reading in me thinking I'm above anyone else or being a standard bearer on this. I'm obviously not, but as with anything, I will ofcourse argue my views on the matter.

The thing is, you weren't arguing your now stated views.

I'd thought it be a community grown immune to lesser of X evils reasoning

You now say that there are situations that call for the 'lesser of X evils reasoning'. But you did not address the issue as the topic, 'Johnson does not call for using the lesser of X evils reasoning, because:'. How is this supposed to be weighted in my head? 'I think that 1,000's of lives is reasoning enough, but Nils Dacke says it isn't'. I say 1,000's of lives you say nuking the world, how are we to decipher anything from that? You say it is right to vote for Castle but wrong to vote for Johnson yet your reasoning didn't follow through and you can provide no principles to verify the statement, am I wrong for questioning your views on the matter?

We could easily get to the point where Ron wouldn't pass the 'test'. He said he'd reduce waste and abuse in foodstamps and hope that in progression it would one day be ended, he called for the ability for young generations to opt out of SS, he called on stopping the spending on wars and spending it at home. The principled libertarian thing would be to advocate immediate end to foodstamps and SS. But we can see now, or at least it is how I perceive it, that he took these positions so that his reach would be greater and he could reach ears that otherwise may have been turned away by taking strictly the libertarian stance.

Now there is obviously great difference in the two. Ron spoke in a way to be palatable to the masses while Gary believes the things he says. But I think it brings into question the efficacy of straight truth versus 'luring them in' and then guiding them to the straight truth. I don't know the truth of the matter but it has been said to me that very little of Ron's support was libertarians. I have seen people on this forum say that they only voted for Ron because he was the one angry at the system, and that Trump has greater appeal to them than Ron.

In my mind it really comes down to an academia thing. Are we here because we want to educate or because we want change. Obviously the two have some overlap. I personally hate politics and am here because of a desire for change. While some people are happy to educate all their lives with little prospect for change. I think we need to make sure there is room for the exploration and execution of both.

If don't wanna engage in this forum, then we'll just go wherever they are for those kinds of discussions and leave this a place for, as i understand the site mission, build support around fellow libertarians.

My desire is for brethren not to get shat upon for advocating for a path that will minimize the harm caused by our government. And it really isn't even a big issue on the forum other than one guy and the trumpsters that like to play in his feces. And you decided to dip your toe in the ring on your first post. Who is the we'll? The reason I say this discussion is a waste of time is because you are not who I need to convince to support GJ and there is little evidence that this site is hospitable to activism to support him. The principles behind the discussion are important. I think it amounts to how we are going to treat fellow libertarians in their work towards achieving their desired objective. The project below I think would go a long way in solving that. Having that discussion right now is not important to me, so, welcome, and good day.

[MENTION=38270]Natural Citizen[/MENTION]

I am glad to see your interest in the Foundational Knowledge project. Obviously this is Bryan's baby so my view is just my own, but as I understand it, the way stuff will get done within the project is that- individual(s) will see something worth doing, start an effort to do so, and then other individuals who also see the worth in doing so would be free to help at their pleasure and the project manager's direction. I'm sure there would/will be some room for debate on the efficacy of a specific project, but I really doubt spamming the members of the project, after they have addressed your issue and respond with why they still see value in the project, would be tolerated. So if my understanding is correct you are acting counter to the project you state you support.

And it makes no sense. You have expended so much effort attacking/doubting the integrity of the principled libertarians who are knowingly supporting an unprincipled candidate because they see his government doing less harm than the alternatives while we have an abundance of unprincipled individuals supporting an unprincipled candidate because they support his unprincipled positions!

 

[Natural Citizen]

@Natural Citizen

You have expended so much effort attacking/doubting the integrity of the principled libertarians who are knowingly supporting an unprincipled candidate...

So you agree that it's an unprincipled contention for a leader to send men from the government with guns to force me to relinquish my rights but it's a principled act to organize for him anyway? Is that what I'm reading here? LOL.

You're defning a principled libertarian as someone who would knowingly organize for a guy who openly contends that he'd send men from the government with guns to force them to relinquish their property....and you're defining unprincipled libertarians as those who object to it?

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

So you agree that it's an unprincipled contention for a leader to send men from the government with guns to force me to relinquish my rights but it's a principled act to organize for him anyway? Is that what I'm reading here? LOL.

You're defning a principled libertarian as someone who would knowingly organize for a guy who openly contends that he'd send men from the government with guns to force them to relinquish their property....and you're defining unprincipled libertarians as those who object to it?

Your sobs are not even worth addressing at this point.