Maybe Gary Johnson is more libertarian than he sounds.

[undergroundrr]

Gary Johnson is going to make me bake the cake. No thank you.

You know who I'm voting for.

Nailed it dude

libertarian (noun) - a person whose dominant mission in life is to point out how un-libertarian other libertarians are.

 

[euphemia]

I think there's another good reason to vote for Johnson. He's not going to get elected but if he gets a lot of votes it makes the Libertarian Party more relevant in the future.

Johnson is making the Libertarian Party less relevant because he is not a Libertarian. They were dumb and desperate enough to nominate him, and I hope they just go away after this.

 

[euphemia]

Gary Johnson is a libertarian.

No, he is not. He is a libertine trying to make money off politics.

 

[eleganz]

I don't really care, I'm a businessman and a libertarian. If we can have a third party candidate talking about abolishing the IRS in the general election debates, I'm one happy camper.

Anything else on top of that is a bonus.

One step at a time people, expecting perfection as a general election presidential candidate will never happen in our lifetime, in fact 2016 is the best shot we have. If the two parties manage to own this year's debates, we may never have another chance again.

That is what is at stake, in my opinion.

 

[euphemia]

I don't really care, I'm a businessman and a libertarian. If we can have a third party candidate talking about abolishing the IRS in the general election debates, I'm one happy camper..

So basically, you are for liberty when it works for you. That's not Libertarian.

 

[eleganz]

So basically, you are for liberty when it works for you. That's not Libertarian.

LOL whatever you say.

I understand the concept that we can't always have everything we want at exactly the time we want it.

I'm ok with taking baby steps and sometimes when the opportunity allows, to take advantage of that opportunity.

In your very closed minded world, there will never be progress made in the ideas that we believe in because you either want everything at once, on your terms, or not at all.

When you step into the real world you will understand that not everybody will agree with everything you say and that compromise and negotiations are a key pillar to progress.

 

[RJ Liberty]

I have no respect for anyone who would trash Gary Johnson and support Donald Trump.

I have a lot of respect for anyone who would trash Gary Johnson and trash Donald Trump and support Daryl Castle.

Darrell Castle is right on many issues, but he is a horrible presidential candidate. He is not at all a serious candidate for POTUS; a serious candidate conducts media interviews and makes regular appearances in public. Take a look at Castle's event calendar. He's doing two appearances per week, including a weekly webinar from his home.

Johnson makes more media appearances in a week than Castle has in his entire presidential run; and it's not because the "media is ignoring Castle": Mr. Castle could easily appear on local TV stations in his area, but he has not done so. Meanwhile, Johnson's talking about liberty issues, getting the press to talk about things like police violence, eliminating the NSA, ending the Department of Education, etc.

Castle is making no headway, and he's not even trying. Because of his lackluster efforts, no national pollster is taking him seriously, and his two statewide polls (Nevada and Utah) are... exactly what you'd expect of a candidate who rarely appears in public: 1% and 2%, which will translate to less than that in the election.

I have a lot of respect for anyone (Castle, Johnson, Stein, etc) willing to tilt at windmills against the major party candidates, but Castle appears to be hardly trying.

 

[JohnM]

Darrell Castle . . .is not at all a serious candidate for POTUS; a serious candidate conducts media interviews and makes regular appearances in public. . . . Mr. Castle could easily appear on local TV stations in his area, but he has not done so. . .

Castle is . . . not even trying.

Interesting. Assuming that you are correct, I wonder why that is? Did Baldwin and Goode try a lot harder? Did they get more media coverage? And if they did get more media coverage, was that a result of the fact that they tried harder?

 

[Origanalist]

So basically, you are for liberty when it works for you. That's not Libertarian.

" cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."

 

[euphemia]

I understand the concept that we can't always have everything we want at exactly the time we want it.

I'm ok with taking baby steps and sometimes when the opportunity allows, to take advantage of that opportunity.

Gary Johnson is about giant steps in the wrong direction. He is not a Libertarian. He is a liberal. He believes in big government for all the wrong things. He would bring the full force of government to bear on certain unfavored groups. He would pour a lot of money into the EPA, which is one of the biggest government overreaches there is, and he would use government for gun control and "some wars."

I will never vote for him.

 

[euphemia]

" cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."

Indeed. A Johnson presidency would be about as bad as a Hillary presidency, from a personal liberty point of view.

 

[Murray N Rothbard]

I think most everyone here agrees that Gary Johnson is far from a pure libertarian. But it bothers me when people trash Johnson and then support Trump as if Trump is more libertarian than Johnson. I'm quite sure that Johnson is more libertarian than Trump and it's not even close.

I think there's a crucial difference between the things Gary Johnson is saying and the things Trump or just about any Republican is saying. I think Johnson, in an attempt to get votes, is trying to sound LESS libertarian than he is in reality, compared to typical republicans who try to sound MORE libertarian than they really are.

So my point is that on the "Election Speech Libertarian Scale" Gary Johnson might be a 6 and Trump might be a 4, but in REALITY it's more like Johnson is an 8 and Trump is a 2.

This is a great observation imo.

Gary has lost his way though. He's really immersed himself in the game of political deception and at this point is just another conniving politician. In that respect, he is very much like Donald Trump. But you are right, he is in his heart-of-hearts MORE libertarian than what he makes himself appear, while Trump is LESS.

But that is irrelevant imo. I don't want a Libertarian who has to hide it. Just the opposite, it should be a libertarian who SHOWCASES his libertarian principles. Johnson is in many respects the anti-libertarian libertarian. He represents everything that a libertarian candidate- who in actuality does hold libertarian principles- should be. I think this is a problem with our goals. If our goals are only to "get elected" then we let the means undermine the ends. If getting elected is all that matters the principle suffer and we are, at the end of the day, no better than Trump. Because libertarian ideas and principles will not have been furthered. In fact they may be tarnished and harmed.

There should be a three-pronged approach for a libertarian candidate/party I think. These are 1) to always uphold the original principles of non-aggression and individual self ownership and liberty, 2) to spread these ideas to as many people as effectively as possible, and 3) to get elected and dismantle the apparatus of statism.

GJ has sacrificed the first two parts of the strategy.

 

[undergroundrr]

There should be a three-pronged approach for a libertarian candidate/party I think. These are 1) to always uphold the original principles of non-aggression and individual self ownership and liberty, 2) to spread these ideas to as many people as effectively as possible, and 3) to get elected and dismantle the apparatus of statism.

1) ... except when it would sink your candidacy.
2) ... except when it would sink your candidacy.
3) ... after your candidacy has not been sunk.

The first two points are describing an educational campaign, not an election strategy.

Your strategy would work great with the 1.5% of the populace who are INTJ libertarians. If they got a chance to hear the candidate's name that is.

 

[Murray N Rothbard]

1) ... except when it would sink your candidacy.
2) ... except when it would sink your candidacy.
3) ... after your candidacy has not been sunk.

The first two points are describing an educational campaign, not an election strategy.

Your strategy would work great with the 1.5% of the populace who are INTJ libertarians. If they got a chance to hear the candidate's name that is.

No.

Even if if it DOES "sink your candidacy." Then so be it. There has to be a limit to which you commit to #3 in the strategy. Why are the principles always expendable? They should NOT be expendable.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Why are the principles always expendable? They should NOT be expendable.

Absolutely agreed. This is something that we're seeing become popularized. Very good. I'm glad that you mentioned this. Because that's what I was going to say.

And just looking through this thread (actually across the entire forum) we see this very thing. What is concerning is that we're seeing the actual principles being redefined in a kind of cultural Marxist way. Except they're being redefined without even acknowledging them. This is what makes these politicians who do so under the banner of liberty and their echo chambers so dangerous.

This popularized notion that policy is the measurement for liberty is very, very dangerous to the cause ofliberty. Liberty is defined by principles. It exists by way of a specific foundation for moral code. But we're seeing politicos redefine it in a kind of political American Idolish kind of way.

 

[CaptUSA]

No.

Even if if it DOES "sink your candidacy." Then so be it. There has to be a limit to which you commit to #3 in the strategy. Why are the principles always expendable? They should NOT be expendable.

My principles are pretty basic. I take a look at where we are now. Then I see which candidates, on the whole, will grow government and reduce liberty. And then I cross them off the list.

When looking at the candidates remaining (including write-ins), I decide which one could use my insignificant little vote and I cast it for them. This time, it may be Johnson, it may be Castle, or it may just be Ron Paul. Still undecided. But on the whole, comparing Johnson to where we are now - NOT where we'd like to be - Johnson still has a chance.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Neither Gary Johnson nor Donald Trump are even remotely close to being "Libertarian" in terms of their political ideology. The reason so many of us prefer Trump is because his specific positions on Foreign Policy and Immigration are excellent despite him not using a libertarian thought process to get there.

 

[Madison320]

Neither Gary Johnson nor Donald Trump are even remotely close to being "Libertarian" in terms of their political ideology. The reason so many of us prefer Trump is because his specific positions on Foreign Policy and Immigration are excellent despite him not using a libertarian thought process to get there.

You make it sound like they're about equal on the libertarian scale and that's totally wrong. Johnson is much more libertarian than Trump.

I think Trump's position on immigration is one of his weakest. Building a wall and trying to purge the country of illegal immigrants will hurt the economy not help it. We need free market solutions to the immigration "problem" not government solutions.

The problem is that we are a mostly socialistic country that still has free stuff to hand out. That attracts more socialists from other countries. If we had a capitalistic country we'd mostly be attracting capitalists, not people looking for free stuff.

 

[Madison320]

Indeed. A Johnson presidency would be about as bad as a Hillary presidency, from a personal liberty point of view.

I respect that some people think Johnson is not libertarian enough and so they are not going to vote at all.

I respect that some people are going to vote for Trump, even though they know Johnson is more libertarian, just to make sure Hillary doesn't win.

But if you think Trump or even HILLARY is more libertarian then Johnson, then the nicest thing I can say to you is that you're not paying attention.

 

[undergroundrr]

I think Trump's position on immigration is one of his weakest. Building a wall and trying to purge the country of illegal immigrants will hurt the economy not help it. We need free market solutions to the immigration "problem" not government solutions.

The problem is that we are a mostly socialistic country that still has free stuff to hand out. That attracts more socialists from other countries. If we had a capitalistic country we'd mostly be attracting capitalists, not people looking for free stuff.

Good 'splainin'. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Madison320 again.