Maybe Gary Johnson is more libertarian than he sounds.

[Madison320]

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.

 

[TheTexan]

But is Gary Johnson gonna build a 30-foot wall around our border and drastically increase the size of our deportation police force ??

Because, as a libertarian, that's what I'm primarily looking for

 

[specsaregood]

Maybe Gary Johnson is more libertarian than he sounds.

Despite all evidence to the contrary. Hell, he even has an excuse for acting/sounding libertarian -- he's on the damn LP ticket!

But it bothers me when people trash Johnson and then support Trump as if Trump is more libertarian than Johnson

Well, I think it just as likely that Trump is more libertarian than Johnson as I can't really see Trump giving a shit what people do as long as it doesn't affect him directly, negatively. Whereas Johnson seems to want to be all up in your bedroom, even if it is in order to force your loved one to take gender changing hormones and bang the immigrant lawnmowerman.

Note: not that I would support either of those douchenozzles.

 

[Natural Citizen]

There's no such thing as in between. One is either a defender of Individual Liberty fully or one is an aggressor toward it. And if one is running under the banner of Liberty, then they need to adhere to its fundamental supporting principles.

Also. Fundamentals are not purist. They're merely fundamentals.

This popularized notion that liberty itself can be defined/established by one's policy positions is batsht crazy. Fundamental principles establish/define Liberty. Not policy. But it's become popular to fall back on policy as the benchmark and to measure liberty that way instead of the right way. I think it's just an easy out and a means to ignore the fundamentals themselves while creating the illusion that one is a champion of Individual Liberty among his peers.

And what's really messed up is that these are the people who have the stones to turn around and call fundamentalists who hold actual principles as the measurement contrarians. What an upside down mess...

 

[JohnM]

I agree with the OP. As undergroundrr has pointed out on several occasions, Johnson is not not aiming his campaign at libertarians, but at moderates - particularly socially liberal moderates.

So whenever I have listened to Johnson, he doesn't sound at all libertarian. But when I check out his positions on "I side with", he actually does pretty well.

And yes, he is much better than Trump, IMHO.

But I'm still not going to vote for him.

 

[euphemia]

This popularized notion that liberty itself can be defined/established by one's policy positions is batsht crazy. Fundamental principles establish/define Liberty. Not policy. But it's become popular to fall back on policy as the benchmark and to measure liberty that way instead of the right way. I think it's just an easy out and a means to ignore the fundamentals themselves while creating the illusion that one is a champion of Individual Liberty among their peers.

This is it. It's not liberty just because some politician says it. It only liberty when it is liberty.

 

[Michael Landon]

I would like to point out that at the 1987 Libertarian Party nominating convention, there was a large segment of Libertarian delegates who felt Ron Paul wasn't libertarian enough and was too much of a Republican to be their nominee. They threw their support to Russell Means. Libertarians are a different group of individuals, some support open borders and some don't, some support abortion as an individual right and some oppose abortion to protect an unborn individual, and both sides use the argument of liberty to support their views.

This is why I'm a libertarian leaning Constitutionalist.

- ML

 

[Madison320]

There's no such thing as in between. One is either a defender of Individual Liberty fully or one is an aggressor toward it. And if one is running under the banner of Liberty, then they need to adhere to its fundamental supporting principles.

Also. Fundamentals are not purist. They're merely fundamentals.

This popularized notion that liberty itself can be defined/established by one's policy positions is batsht crazy. Fundamental principles establish/define Liberty. Not policy. But it's become popular to fall back on policy as the benchmark and to measure liberty that way instead of the right way. I think it's just an easy out and a means to ignore the fundamentals themselves while creating the illusion that one is a champion of Individual Liberty among his peers.

And what's really messed up is that these are the people who have the stones to turn around and call fundamentalists who hold actual principles as the measurement contrarians. What an upside down mess...

I totally disagree. There's no such thing as a "pure" libertarian. There too many gray areas. Should abortion be legal? Should intellectual property be protected? Should we have a military? Should we have a government?

That being said most of the issues are what I'd consider to be "no-brainers" and Gary Johnson did screw up at least one of those (discrimination laws). But overall I'm still voting for him.

 

[jmdrake]

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.

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.

There are more then two three choices you know.

 

[Madison320]

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.

I'm actually rooting for Clinton to win. I believe by far our biggest problem is our cheap money policies of debt, low rates and printing. I expect we are going to have an economic crisis in the near future much worse than the last one in 2008. I think if it happens on a democrat's watch, it gets blamed on socialism. If it happens on a republican's watch it gets blamed on capitalism (not that they practice it!). My hope is that the combination of the US being broke and the crash being blamed on socialism will get us turned in the right direction. Of course my idea could backfire and the crash could pave the way for Clinton to take over the country in 3rd world style.

 

[specsaregood]

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.

Why on earth would you want an LP such as the one that GJ represents be relevant? We don't need another big government liberal party.

 

[Madison320]

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.

There are more then two three choices you know.

I don't know anything about Daryl Castle but I think I remember the Constitution Party making all sorts of silly excuses as to why alcohol should be legal but other drugs illegal and why prohibiting alcohol requires an amendment but prohibiting other drugs does not. And trying to sound very legal and educated about the whole thing despite being dead wrong.

Another problem with the Constitution Party is what if it changes? What if the Constitution gets amended to support socialism? Will the Constitution Party still be required to support a socialist Constitution? I'd rather support a principle (liberty), not a document.

 

[Madison320]

Why on earth would you want an LP such as the one that GJ represents be relevant? We don't need another big government liberal party.

First I think you're being silly calling GJ a big government liberal. What does that make Clinton and Trump? Or 99.99% of the population for that matter. Would they be Super Hyper Gargantuan Government Liberals? Second, by the time the LP has a chance to actually win an election it'll be a different candidate and no one will remember that GJ wasn't a pure libertarian.

 

[specsaregood]

First I think you're being silly calling GJ a big government liberal. What does that make Clinton and Trump? Or 99.99% of the population for that matter. Would they be Super Hyper Gargantuan Government Liberals? Second, by the time the LP has a chance to actually win an election it'll be a different candidate and no one will remember that GJ wasn't a pure libertarian.

because he is, and his mantra for cost benefit driven government decisions will only lead to bigger government and more fascism.

And if they are successful, the people will say, "see we got more votes than ever because GJ supported taxing the air you breathe, we need to propose more of that!"

 

[JohnM]

I don't know anything about Daryl Castle but I think I remember the Constitution Party making all sorts of silly excuses .... Another problem with the Constitution Party is ...

I didn't know anything about Castle 3 months ago. But I took the time to find out.

This is a good place to start: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...stle-(POTUS)&p=6299732&viewfull=1#post6299732

Or you could try
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...tle-on-the-issues-how-their-positions-compare

As for the Constitution Party . . . well, like the Libertarian Party and Republican Party, it includes a wide variety of people. I tend to look at the candidate rather than the party. Parties mean something, but not much.

Which, by the way, is why I'm not that excited by the prospect of making the LP more 'relevant'.

 

[PierzStyx]

I would like to point out that at the 1987 Libertarian Party nominating convention, there was a large segment of Libertarian delegates who felt Ron Paul wasn't libertarian enough and was too much of a Republican to be their nominee. They threw their support to Russell Means. Libertarians are a different group of individuals, some support open borders and some don't, some support abortion as an individual right and some oppose abortion to protect an unborn individual, and both sides use the argument of liberty to support their views.

This is why I'm a libertarian leaning Constitutionalist.

- ML

At least there is a libertarian sounding argument for abortion, though I think it misses the forest for the trees. There isn't a libertarian argument for demanding the federal government be given power to destroy families and violate the body of a person using their right to transverse unowned land just because it has an imaginary line drawn across it on some map. It is anti-free market as well, since it restricts the free flow of human capital. There isn't even a constitutionalist argument for it. There is only a Statist argument for monopolistic violence to create an American "safe space" where the mean ol' Mexicans won't steal your jobs or pollute your women.

This is when the ugly side of minarchy is revealed and demonstrates that, at the end of the day, libertarianism and minarchy are not the same thing and cannot co-exist, ultimately. Because libertarianism demands all a person's rights be recognized, minarchy does not.

 

[adissa]

But is Gary Johnson gonna build a 30-foot wall around our border and drastically increase the size of our deportation police force ??

Because, as a libertarian, that's what I'm primarily looking for

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

You know who I'm voting for.

 

[oyarde]

One thing I think is kinda funny is , the Libertarians are going to get more votes than ever before this time and none of them will be from Libertarians . If Trump cannot take the states he needs ( we do not know if he can compete in Ohio, Fla etc) , Clinton wins easily. Given the electoral map , there may never be another Pres who is not a Dem until after the next great economic collapse that should be worse.

 

[69360]

This has been debated to death. Who cares anymore? The two major party candidates are criminals. Johnson is a good guy. I don't care that he doesn't support your pet issues.

 

[pcgame]

.......