Gary Johnson Questions whether employees are hostage to smoking environments

[libertybrewcity]

Q: What did you think of Rand Paul’s initial statements about the Civil Rights Act, that the government should not tell private businesses they can’t discriminate? That’s consistent with libertarian views, right? A: When he made those statements, I thought to myself, “This is probably why I’m a Republican, because maybe I would not toe the (libertarian) line.” I’d like to think I would have signed the civil rights bill and wouldn’t have had any issues with it.

Q: You thought about this because of what Paul said? A: Yes. As a result of his statements, I found myself engaged in discussions over just that notion. I was trying to think of examples where I would have sided with the notion that government does have a role in that capacity. Something analogous is smoking in restaurants. I was opposed to the government mandating that restaurants not allow people to smoke, believing it becomes the customer’s choice whether they go in or not. But then, I thought, what about the employees? Aren’t they hostage to a smoking environment, even if they don’t smoke?

Interview: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/09/washington-wire-q-a-gary-johnson/

 

[Romulus]

seriously? GJ is done for me.. this guy has too many authoritarian tendencies.

 

[low preference guy]

Gary Johnson supports Civil Rights Act 1964

So does Rand Paul.

But this shows you he doesn't understand the importance of private property.

I’d like to think I would have signed the civil rights bill and wouldn’t have had any issues with it.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

Wait, you say he supports a smoking ban when he never said he does. Show me where he says he supports a nationwide smoking ban in that statement. You guys are lying about Gary Johnson like Fox misconstrues words of Ron. Keep lying, you are turning into the other side when you do.

 

[libertybrewcity]

My bad, I accidentally said he does not civil rights act in the title when he does.

Wait, you say he supports a smoking ban when he never said he does. Show me where he says he supports a nationwide smoking ban in that statement. You guys are lying about Gary Johnson like Fox misconstrues words of Ron. Keep lying, you are turning into the other side when you do.

This is politics. People don't say things straight up or straight down. He said the employees are hostage to the environment. It's pretty clear.

 

[Guitarzan]

Wait, you say he supports a smoking ban when he never said he does. Show me where he says he supports a nationwide smoking ban in that statement. You guys are lying about Gary Johnson like Fox misconstrues words of Ron. Keep lying, you are turning into the other side when you do.

He may not have said the words, but he sure implied that there is justification to undermine the principle of property rights. That raises the question of whether or not Johnson would be true to his supposed libertarian principles. And if you fail to recognize that from his comment here, then you, too, are being blinded by your bias for him.

 

[low preference guy]

And if you fail to recognize that from his comment here, then you, too, are being blinded by your bias for him.

That or Bama doesn't care much about property rights.

 

[jmdrake]

Trying to make the GOP primary about the 1964 Civil Rights Act in order to win over the 2% that support Gary Johnson is a great way to lose the election for Ron Paul. But if/when Ron's enemies attack him on this, the smart response is "The constitution does not authorize the federal government to be involved in intrastate commerce. If we continue to let the federal government overstep its bounds this way then Elena Kagan is right and congress can pass a law saying you have to eat certain foods or go to prison."

 

[jmdrake]

My bad, I accidentally said he does not civil rights act in the title when he does.

This is politics. People don't say things straight up or straight down. He said the employees are hostage to the environment. It's pretty clear.

Sure. What's unclear is if he thinks that's a federal issue or a state issue. The problem is that many people don't understand the difference between a constitutional conservative and a social conservative. A constitutional conservative thinks the government can intervene but only in a constitutional way. A social conservative thinks the government can intervene in any way that fits his agenda. Take prohibition of alcohol. Passing an amendment to ban alcohol was not libertarian but it was constitutional. Back then nobody dared suggest that the interstate commerce clause gave the feds a blank check to do anything. But if they had a social conservative would have said "Okay. Since the federal government is all powerful congress should just pass a federal law banning alcohol." Constitutional conservatism does put significant limits on what the government can do (it's very difficult to pass an amendment for instance, and the power of the purse isn't an ironclad guarantee that the states will do what you want), but it doesn't go as far as hardcore libertarians would like.

 

[CaptUSA]

Look, we have to stop this purity test. Gary Johnson is way better than most elected politicians. I appreciate Gary giving an honest statement here and I appreciate the fact that he's looking at the issue from both sides.

Now, I support Ron Paul, but I'm certainly not going to disparage anyone who has disagreements. I think we all must understand that with liberty, comes responsibility. And there are bound to be different lines for each individual as to how much of each they would like.

If we continue with this purity test of insinuating that anyone who disagrees with us is a statist, then we have no hope of regaining any liberty. The goal is to attract those that are interested in liberty and unite them. I think this kind of thing is harmful to our cause.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Hey Gary I heard you might like Mike Huckabee. LOL.

 

[specsaregood]

Look, we have to stop this purity test. Gary Johnson is way better than most elected politicians. I appreciate Gary giving an honest statement here and I appreciate the fact that he's looking at the issue from both sides.

Now, I support Ron Paul, but I'm certainly not going to disparage anyone who has disagreements. I think we all must understand that with liberty, comes responsibility. And there are bound to be different lines for each individual as to how much of each they would like.

If we continue with this purity test of insinuating that anyone who disagrees with us is a statist, then we have no hope of regaining any liberty. The goal is to attract those that are interested in liberty and unite them. I think this kind of thing is harmful to our cause.

At the same time, being willing to take the principled stand and unafraid to stick to it despite it being unpopular is exactly what changes minds, creates headlines and pushes the ball closer to the liberty side of the field. For example: Rand's recent stand in the Senate. He came under lots of pressure, was insulted on the Senate floor and stood strong on the principles many of us support. Wafflers that are willing to give in on this principles, end up backing down like some of the other Senators yesterday.

 

[AndrewD]

Yea i've never been too keen on Gary. Ok he has some Libertarian views, great. But that is not a free-pass in my book. The guy is still subject to the same scrutiny as any other candidate in my books.

Why is he still getting a free-pass on these forums for his stance on Guantanamo and the tortures? That is a huge NO-GO.

 

[Travlyr]

Look, we have to stop this purity test. Gary Johnson is way better than most elected politicians.

Gary Johnson had 8 years to free New Mexico. New Mexico is no freer than any other State. I doubt he would achieve better results at the federal level unless perhaps he was in the Senate.

 

[CaptUSA]

At the same time, being willing to take the principled stand and unafraid to stick to it despite it being unpopular is exactly what changes minds, creates headlines and pushes the ball closer to the liberty side of the field. For example: Rand's recent stand in the Senate. He came under lots of pressure, was insulted on the Senate floor and stood strong on the principles many of us support. Wafflers that are willing to give in on this principles, end up backing down like some of the other Senators yesterday.

Yeah, absolutely! I'm not suggesting anyone change their stance here! I fully know that we're in the right. We should not in any way change our stance or fail to live up to our principles.

What I am suggesting is that we refrain from disparaging someone because they are not 100% with us. We need these people as well. We're never going to make all the people agree with us 100% no matter how much we may think that would preferable. Getting Paul elected is about building a coalition. If we call Johnson an "authoritarian", we end up driving his supporters away instead of bringing them in.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

He may not have said the words, but he sure implied that there is justification to undermine the principle of property rights. That raises the question of whether or not Johnson would be true to his supposed libertarian principles. And if you fail to recognize that from his comment here, then you, too, are being blinded by your bias for him.

"Bias for him." Yep, having all this Ron Paul 2012 stuff shows my bias toward him. Seriously, you guys are ignorant if you take a throw away line in a print article. Unlike you guys I've actually talked to Gary. I've observed his record and he's a big 10th amendment, personal property, defender of the Constitution, friend of the liberty movement person. He is not some politician looking to promote himself like many. The guy has really been out of the spotlight for a little over 6 years and he's not trending in the Presidential race, so... at least be honest about him. We will all (hopefully) want to support him when he runs for Senator as I've heard there has been clamors for him to do so. Just be honest.

As for the Civil Rights Act.... Let it go. If you want to defend the opposition of it, you are asking for political defeat. It's a losing argument. On a personal level I get debating it. But, for a politician, suicide.... it's why Rand walked his statement back and said he'd vote for it, as Ron also said he would so.... are they undermining the principle of property rights?

 

[low preference guy]

As for the Civil Rights Act.... Let it go. If you want to defend the opposition of it, you are asking for political defeat. It's a losing argument. On a personal level I get debating it. But, for a politician, suicide...

But going out of one's way saying one has no conflict whatsoever with it shows that one doesn't take property rights seriously.

it's why Rand walked his statement back and said he'd vote for it, as Ron also said he would so.... are they undermining the principle of property rights?

BULLSHIT

 

[BamaFanNKy]

But going out of one's way saying one has no conflict whatsoever with it shows that Gary doesn't take property rights seriously.

BULLSHIT

I quoted like this because your second comment fits your first one.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

Also, it was a newspaper interview. Again, what is said in print take with a grain of salt. Reporters skewed Rand Paul's words all through 2010 and I've learned, trust nothing written in print.

 

[low preference guy]

I quoted like this because your second comment fits your first one.

Or more likely, because you want to distract from your lie about Ron Paul.