Johnson: The GOP Is a Dying Party. That’s Why I’m Running Against Trump

[dannno]

Oh, hey, there was also a discussion that he had on private property...you know....like the most important thing for Individual Liberty...with Stossel the other day. Here's how that went...


Stossel: Should Jewish bakers should be forced to bake wedding cakes for Nazi customers?

Johnson: That would be my contention, yes


Of course, we all know what being forced to do something really means. Right? Like at the barrel of the government's gun? Heh. So, yeah. A real champion of Individual Liberty, that Johnson guy is.

Yes, I know he isn't a principled libertarian like Ron Paul, but if I had to make a list of liberties I could live with or without, bakers being able to not bake cakes for gay weddings probably falls about #483 on the list.

Gary Johnson does very well on my top 100 list of liberties I cherish most (not just selfish liberties for myself, but for the betterment of society as a whole) much better than Hillary and better than Trump.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Gary Johnson is not tethered by the constraints of either major party. He is afforded the luxury of being 'pure', but decides to play a puzzling role.

He isn't trying to be "pure."

...though he is, obviously, infinitely closer to the libertarian ideal than Trumpllary.

He's trying to dramatically increase the LP's share of the vote, so that the party might actually achieve something in the future.

According to the polls, it's working.

All libertarians should be cheering him on.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Yes, I know he isn't a principled libertarian like Ron Paul, but if I had to make a list of liberties I could live with or without, bakers being able to not bake cakes for gay weddings probably falls about #483 on the list.

What? That is THE one, man. It's the most important one. You call it baking gay wedding cakes but the principle is far, far, far more critical and relevant to the concept of Individual Liberty than that. We're talking about the primary foundation for the principels of Individual Liberty itself. Johnson's position is patently contrary to it.

Gary Johnson does very well on my top 100 list of liberties I cherish most (not just selfish liberties for myself, but for the betterment of society as a whole) much better than Hillary and better than Trump.

His position is contrary to the primary foundation for the principels of Individual Liberty at its core.

 

[euphemia]

...though he is, obviously, infinitely closer to the libertarian ideal than Trumpllary.

Trump does not claim to be libertarian. Johnson does, and he's not telling the truth.

All libertarians should be cheering him on.

No, they shouldn't. Johnson is all about big government. The budget of New Mexico was bigger when he left office than when he took it. Limited government libertarian he ain't.

 

[dannno]

What? That is THE one, man. It's the most important one. You call it baking gay wedding cakes but the principle is far, far, far more critical and relevant to the concept of Individual Liberty than that. We're talking about the primary foundation for the principels of Individual Liberty itself. Johnson's position is patently contrary to it.



His position is contrary to the primary foundation for the principels of Individual Liberty at its core.

Right, we have a LONG way to go before we are going to get any sort of 'principles' in the legislative process so right now we have to settle for moving in the right direction.

Gary Johnson moves us WAAY over in the right direction. Sorry, but the CRA was passed about 50 years ago and we haven't had any semblence of property rights since then.

There is no way a candidate can win the Presidency today if they want to run on a campaign of being able to post "no blacks allowed" signs on businesses. We have to educate a lot of people first on what liberty means and why it's important because in 95%+ of the population's mind our country made a lot of progress due to those laws and they don't want to go back. Like Gary Johnson said, it's a black hole issue.

In the mean time I'd like lower taxes, less foreign empire and a smaller government, please.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Gary Johnson does very well on my top 100 list of liberties I cherish most (not just selfish liberties for myself, but for the betterment of society as a whole) much better than Hillary and better than Trump.

And this. Heh. I forgot to touch on this. I'll mention it given rev3's thought there in terms of this anti-moral means justifying the end and given that his thought reminded me that I didn't touch on it.

Let's mention "the pursuit of Happiness." And what that really means. The common good, as you reference, dannno, is fundamentally and principally the sum of the well being of all Individuals acting voluntarily. Now, sure, the Individual may volunteer alone and the Individual may join a group of Individuals and volunteer either Individually or cooperatively in order to create rules for themselves. An Individual or any group of Individuals, which I agree with you on, should be able to organize for the purpose of making rules for themselves. But only if their rules don't prohibit me from equally doing the same for the purpose of enjoyment of my equal, unalienable rights. Especially the right to freedom of choice.

That right cannot should not be sacrificed by way of any subordination to any Government-over-Man philosophical principle or equally coercive system. Of course, Johnson's position is patently contrary to that. Admittedly and observably. Is it not?

 

[euphemia]

Interesting how Johnson says he's running against Trump, but not against Hillary Clinton. He never tried to run as a Republican. What a joke.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Interesting how Johnson says he's running against Trump, but not against Hillary Clinton. He never tried to run as a Republican. What a joke.

Mm. Yep. You know, if Johnson weren't running under the banner of Liberty, I likely wouldn't even pop my mouth off about him. But he is running under that banner. And it's compounded by the fact that people around here, of all people, are okay with him being the face for making Liberty a household name. My gosh. I've given up on elections of this magnitude and party politics. It's become nothing but a big ole game of divide and conquer. The foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty, and, consequently, Individual Liberty, itself, are what are critical to defend now more than ever. We're back to working from the ground up now. And, unfortunately, virtue is eroding within the Liberty movement itself. And that's a major problem. And Johnson's moral position is patently contrary to the very foundation that provides for the principles of Individual Liberty itself.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Trump does not claim to be libertarian. Johnson does, and he's not telling the truth.

Gary is a libertarian running as a libertarian; Trump is a progressive running as a conservative.

Socialized medicine, bank bailouts, Keynesian stimulus, the Fed, protectionism, the Iraq War, the Libya War, the PATRIOT ACT, drug prohibition.

^^^things which Trump supports and Gary opposes

 

[Natural Citizen]

He isn't trying to be "pure."

Pure? Ha! He isn't even trying to be fundamental. Much less pure. I wouldn't even have the audacity to mention the word pure given that his position is patently contrary to the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself.

According to the polls, it's working.

All libertarians should be cheering him on.

Mm. Yeah. It might be working. Admittedly, the general public are easily led astray. I'll give you folks that much. It's true. Deception, unfortunately, is the new name of the game. No doubt about it. But people should be kicking themselves in the rear end for organizing against the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty by promoting this guy in its name. Not cheering. If they're cheering, then, the cultural Marxists have won.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Pure? Ha! He isn't even trying to be fundamental. Much less pure. I wouldn't even have the audacity to mention the word pure given that his position is patently contrary to the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty itself.

I appreciate that you see the extension of the CRA to sexual orientation as the most important issue facing the country.

I, however, don't.

I care about things that actually matter: like the Fed, the debt, the wars, the police state, etc.

....aka things on which Gary takes the libertarian view.

Mm. Yeah. It might be working. Admittedly, the general public are easily led astray. I'll give you folks that much. It's true. Deception, unfortunately, is the new name of the game. No doubt about it. But people should be kicking themselves in the rear end for organizing against the primary foundation for the principles of Individual Liberty by promoting this guy in its name. Not cheering. If they're cheering, then, the cultural Marxists have won.

Yea, it would be just terrible if a strongly (though not perfectly) libertarian candidate got some traction.

The world would be so much better off if the presidential debate stage were dominated by people who reject libertarianism in every respect.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I appreciate that you see the extension of the CRA to sexual orientation as the most important issue facing the country.

That's not the issue. And it's disingenuous for you to even attampt to create the illusion that it is. It's deceptive.

 

[Occam's Banana]

[...] if I had to make a list of liberties I could live with or without, bakers being able to not bake cakes for gay weddings probably falls about #483 on the list.

Forcing someone to bake cakes for gay weddings is merely a particular form of forcing X to provide Y for Z.

If not being forced to do so is a liberty you can live without, then you have essentially just announced your willingness to live without liberty at all.

Anyone who thinks that Johnson's approval of forcing bakers to bake cakes for gays applies (or would be applied) only to bakers and cakes and gays - as if that particular combination constitutes a special case of some kind, distinct from any other X or Y or Z - is seriously deluded ...

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I appreciate that you see the extension of the CRA to sexual orientation as the most important issue facing the country.

That's not the issue. And it's disingenuous for you to even attampt to create the illusion that it is. It's deceptive.

Let's review:

Yes, I know he isn't a principled libertarian like Ron Paul, but if I had to make a list of liberties I could live with or without, bakers being able to not bake cakes for gay weddings probably falls about #483 on the list.

What? That is THE one, man. It's the most important one. You call it baking gay wedding cakes but the principle is far, far, far more critical and relevant to the concept of Individual Liberty than that. We're talking about the primary foundation for the principels of Individual Liberty itself. Johnson's position is patently contrary to it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Let's review:

Bull. You're being deceptive again. You're spinning so fast that you're doing donuts, man. Sexual orientation is not the issue.

Would you prefer that I start a topic on it for clarity in the Johnson section? A nice thorough one? Because I can get really, really thorough on what the issue actually is. I'm not one of these drones around here who will roll over and let someone create a deceptive and false illusion of the terms of controversy. I'll tell you what the terms of controversy are precisely and welcome anyone to disagree.

 

[euphemia]

Gary is a libertarian running as a libertarian; Trump is a progressive running as a conservative.

Then Johnson is being dishonest, and he's pandering to social progressives.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Bull. You're being deceptive again. You're spinng so fast that you're doing donuts, man. Sexual orientation is not the issue.

Would you prefer that I start a topic on it for clarity?

Dannno said that the issue of business owners being forced to serve gay customers is not very important.

You responded that it was the most important issue, did you not?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Dannno said that the issue of business owners being forced to serve gay customers is not very important.

You responded that it was the most important issue, did you not?

dannno minimized the issue by stimulating the illusion that the issue was merely business owners being forced to serve gay customers and that it wasn't very important.

I don't care whether people are gay or not. I straightened the facts out on what the issue actually is in scope and at its core for the purpose of forwarding the fact that coercion and force at the barrel of government's gun to enforce principles that are patently contrary to the very principles of Individual Liberty, which is government's only role to protect, is a very, very important issue.

Gary Johnson's position is patently contrary to the primary foundation that establishes the very principles of Individual Liberty itself. As such; he is no friend of Individual Liberty. The principles of Individual Liberty are not to be accepted or rejected piece meal. The foundation that provides for the philosophy of Individual Liberty must either be accepted or rejected in whole. It's the only way to truly benefit from it.

Period.

Play spin games with someone else. I'm not the one.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

dannno minimized the issue by stimulating the illusion that the issue was merely business owners being forced to serve gay customers and that it wasn't very important.

I straightened the facts out on what the issue actually is in scope and at its core.

Gary Jobhnson's position is patently contrary to the primary foundation that established the very principles of Individua Liberty itself. As such; he is no friend of Individual Liberty.

Period.

Play games with someone else. I'm not the one.

Every deviation from libertarian principles is "patently contrary" to libertarian principles (obviously).

Dannno's point (and my own), is that as far as deviations go, Gary's is fairly minor.

Forcing business owners to serve customers they don't want to serve is less bad than (for instance) killing a million people in Iraq for no reason.

Priorities

 

[Natural Citizen]

Every deviation from libertarian principles is "patently contrary" to libertarian principles (obviously).

Dannno's point (and my own), is that as far as deviations go, Gary's is fairly minor.

Forcing business owners to serve customers they don't want to serve is less bad than (for instance) killing a million people in Iraq for no reason.

Priorities

Again, The foundation for the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself cannot be accepted or rejected piece meal. The foundation that provides for the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty must either be accepted or rejected in whole with its beneifits in order to possess and enjoy its benefits fully.

But, yes. Agreed. Priorities.


I'll give you the final word here.