Gary Johnson, Libertarian?? I think not..(again).
Posted by jimjamesjames 8 years, 3 months ago to Politics
Carbon tax? Why?
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Johnson is a frakking idiot, and has lost any façade of being libertarian.
NOT HRM Trump.
NOT Shitlery.
NOT Johnson (and his statist running mate Weld.)
NOTA is a better choice than any of these tax and spenders.
imo, he listened to Trump speak like an idiot without any focus one time too many and thought he could do the same, but that still doesn't excuse the fact he can't rationally examine facts, ignore propaganda, and come to a reasonable conclusion.
I am delighted that he made this error and completely exposed his stupidity. I only wish he had done so before the Libertarian Convention.
Libertarians gave him the rope, and now he has used it to hang himself along with the party.
Johnson also wanted weed to be decriminalized, but not other drugs. Either prohibition is wrong, or its not, in my view. Remove criminal penalties for producing, selling, and using any drug a person wants to ingest. The only way to go.
Life has lots of unsavory choices, consent notwithstanding, but we make the choice anyway.
Einsteain's definition of insanity applies to voting for a lesser evil: Repeating the same action and expecting a different result.
Voting on principle for a candidate with a history of pro-free-market, non-looting policies is not consent.
"Voting on principle for a candidate with a history of pro-free-market, non-looting policies is not consent."
But, as my best friend's mom said a long time ago: "I vote for the SOB that tells me the lies I want to hear." Trump's lies are way better than the Hildebeast's........
Was it only the early few candidates for the Libertarian Party that had any coherency or consistency to their beliefs? Rand could have been called a libertarian with a nearly consistent philosophy. I have some problems with her reification of the adjective and adverb 'right' to a noun 'right' which is somehow inborn as an nattribute of a human being. She somewhat gets around that with a right being a moral principle which has a choice to it.
There is little rationality with drug use. My neighbor in the same building as the heroin overdose asked if I ever smoked tobacco. I said yes and he lit into me for it being stupid due to toxins. He thought I should start using weed like he does and alcohol instead because it is safer. I told him that when burned the two each make hundreds of possibly dangerous toxins. "No", he said. weed is more natural and less toxins because tobacco fields are treated with chemicals, completely forgetting the main reason besides the difference in arterial dilation or constrictions, for the toxins produced by burning of organic matter.
As for drug use, do you think that Rand could have written her stuff without the use of tobacco and amphetamines? I found that with giving up tobacco that I wasn't as able to to get new math ideas as easily as without it.
who are more consistent in their rationality, so please
go easy there. -- j
.
includes self-determination. -- j
.
the science-fiction authors and thinkers may be
envisioning today. . cloning is just around the corner
and progeny can now be created in vitro ... and maybe
also by more exotic means. . the idea just struck me
that a transgender candidate would be even more
novel than the female candidate. . brave new world. -- j
.
I'll try to go easy, but I had to respond.
Your acquaintances may be consistent in their rationality, but they also appear to suffer from gender dysphoria, a mental illness. This is a serious enough issue that I would even have to question their rationality.
I am a conservationistic objectivism advocate ... the
society which determines what is a mental illness
has a whole lot to do with the diagnosis, don't you think? -- j
p.s. I have always considered that the ideal person
would not be caged-in by gender, but would be able
to navigate in either male or female interpersonal
situations equally well. . takes a lot to do this.
.
And about those third parties: the last time we had a third-party candidate try to knock off the Republican candidate for President, was Teddy Roosevelt against William Howard Taft. That gave us Woodrow Wilson. And we all know how that wound up.
"Nobody stays in this valley by faking reality in any manner whatever." -- John Galt
A large part of the country voted for Bernie Sanders and a significant portion of the Democratic Party is incensed that the fix was in for Hillary. They are #NeverHillary. Another large portion are #NeverTrump. Put together, I think there is a substantial enough voting bloc to throw the election.
More to the point: to throw a contest usually means to lose it deliberately. Lose this election, lose the country. It's that simple. And last I heard, Ragnar Danneskjöld was a privateer captain, then a rescuer. He did not attempt an armed overthrow of the looters' state. And even at that, I think you underestimate the spite of the looters' side.
I'm not arguing for an armed overthrow. What I'm hoping for is that enough people realize what poor choices we are presented with and force a do-over. I'm not a Trump supporter per se, but I do appreciate his anti-establishment bent. If there was no choice, however, I think it would open up the races to additional political parties. I think that just like choices in the market, we should have choices in voting. That can't really happen without something changing in a major vote outcome because right now the two parties control the system.
Am I concerned about the attempts by the looters to continue their control? Absolutely. The Democrats have been rigging votes for twenty years now and I don't think that is going to stop until Voter ID laws are mandatory. But they can only rig the votes of the people who don't show up. If we can encourage more and more people to go and vote against the status quo, we might be able to get back on the path to real reform. I may be a bit optimistic as it could very well be that we descend into the looter utopia in Atlas Shrugged instead. We'll see in about three months.
(PS not me down-voting you)
"Excuse me, Mr. Clay," said John Quincy Adams. Who then shut the door.
What happened next behind that closed door, we cannot know. But we can guess.
Now I find it difficult in the extreme to imagine Hillary Clinton bribing enough Republicans to sway their State delegations. That's how bitterly some of them hate her. The Clinton Foundation hasn't enough money to buy off that kind of hate. And because the feelings are mutual, I don't think the Foundation would even have the inclination.
All Trump has to say is this: "You can pick me, or you can pick Hillary. But I warn you: if you pick Hillary, I will take you down with me, and don't think I can't." That's what I would say in his place.
Actually the only thing I think certain people are counting on, is that Hillary will drop dead within a month of taking office. But I am a native son of Virginia. And I can tell you flatly. You do not repeat not want Tim Kaine for President. That. Kind. Of. Failure. Is. Not. An option.
BUT.
He's still a damned sight more libertarian-minded than either of the other two contenders. In a race where -- finally -- a third party candidate might get at least some attention, would you rather:
1.) Go full on "extreme" to the full-bore libertarian principles, possibly alienating good chunks of the folks who might be in the market to jump ship, or
2.) Be more "centrist-libertarian", or "libertarian lite" or whatever euphemism you want to use, and accumulate a decent amount of votes, possibly enough to garner better attention in future elections?
I mean, because let's be clear: No libertarian candidate was going to win. Period. Full-stop. Not a full-bore libertarian, not lib-lite Johnson.
So, with "victory" off the the table, would you rather be the party the squandered its opportunity for attention of the masses by putting up someone whose ideas the electorate simply isn't ready for yet, or put up someone who can act as a ... gateway drug... to libertarianism. Someone who still says a lot of the things they like to hear, but also believes a lot of the things we do. As a perk, they're someone with executive success as governor and so aren't immediately dismissed on credibility issues.
I might not agree with everything GJ proposes, but I think he was the best long-term nominee for the party, given the playing field as it exists today.
But proposing that a carbon tax is a free market approach is unforgivable, utterly irrational, and just as new-speakish as the evil twins. His choice of running mate Weld the Wicked was prophetic, and in retrospect the Libertarian convention delegates should have insisted on a true libertarian as VP to keep Johnson from straying too far from principles. Instead Johnson has apparently taken Weld's idiotic statist position for his own. Johnson doesn't represent me or the free market or liberty.
1.) Someone who is more adherent to our dogma, but will gain less traction from the undecided/NOTA crowd?
2.) Someone who is less adherent to our dogma, but will potentially be able to bring people into the tent and at least open some doors to us?
SINCE we were not going to win either way, it seems better to bring people into the tent, let them have some of their statist ideas still, and slowly wean them off. That seems to have a greater likelihood of long-term success than insisting that the undecideds should go "cold turkey" on a lot of the things they've been indoctrinated into.
I agreed with your premise until Johnson advocated a carbon tax. Misleading the public on an issue that is so anti- free market means that Johnson is not doing what you describe. Johnson could have done so, but he crossed a line into lying, looting, and destroying the free market by advocating a carbon tax that feeds the evil monster state by stealing from the productive, just as the income tax does. He has sided with Clinton, Gore, and Obama, and against liberty. Unforgiveable.
If it takes an imperfect LP candidate to break down that wall so that future, better, LP candidates can just walk on through? I'll take that any day and twice on sundays.
The polling numbers have so far been based on dislike of the evil twins, and Johnson's silence on issues of importance to libertarians, but less important to other prospective voters. This latest LINO cave in to the propaganda of Gore, Obama, and Clinton will lose more than it gains in the polls. Johnson is done.
Trump and Hillary have polling numbers, too. How did they get them? If you get people in your camp by purposely lying to them and sacrificing your principles you have failed. Not that Trump or Hillary actually have ethical principles.
Some things are unacceptable.
Johnson has crossed the line into statist looting. It is the dumbest thing he has done so far.
I won't be surprised if the voters react irrationally, but I won't consent or condone Johnson's unethical (or statist) approach any longer.
Johnson has no chance.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is moral and rational because it might prevent the greater evil and greater attendant consequences.
You're fighting a short game and ignoring the long one. "Yayyyyy" maybe for the next four years there's some fractional difference in evil. But by ignoring the objectively better third option you've made it harder for them, in the next election to make change.
In other words, you can't expect the non-evil to ever have a chance, if you're not willing to commit to the non-evil cause, so that other folks start to see non-evil as viable.
Until people stop voting for the lesser of two evils, aiming at short term concerns, there will be no end to evil.
And thus - you are part of the problem, not the solution.
I think people are so terrified and desperate, they are resorting to Rand's ethics of emergencies when contemplating their choices. I have voted third party before. This time, as I look at the options that will be on my state's ballot, I find they are all distasteful and the quandary has me questioning whether I should just vote all the down ballot options and abstain from supporting any of the presidential options... At this point Johnson has become the lesser of three evils. I am on the fence, but will probably fall in his direction when push comes to shove. I feel as if we are up the proverbial $*%! creek without a paddle.
Galt this stinks.
Regards,
O.A.
Why can't we get suitable candidates to
Run for President?
Seems a fix has been in for years.
Respectfully,
Dobrien
For instance, let's say candidate A is "1 Evil Unit", and B is ".8 Evil Units". Sure, it's easy to say "Well, I saved us 4 years at .2 EU, for .8EU savings woot!"
But if by doing so you prevent candidate C, down the road, who is "0.4 Evil Units" from being viable, you will create a longer-term harm than you are forestalling.
Forestalling evil is a good if there isn't an opportunity to prevent future, greater, evil.
By "forestalling" evil you create a very small, very short-term, reduction in evil. By voting against evil entirely you might create a short-term increase in evil, but set in motion the ability to create a long-term, large reduction in evil, which vastly outweighs the amount of evil you "ignored" in the run-up to the tipping point.
The longer you "lesser of two evils" folks ignore that point, the longer until we can actually rid ourselves of the evil.
Like I said: You're part of the problem.
After the system is unrigged, massive education has to be mounted with the populace so they understand what government should and actually can do. They have to stop listening to the promises of the Hillarys. The president is only 1/3 of the government anyway- and cant do much at all without the congress going along. Plus, no president that I can remember actually carried through on their promises, including Obama (who promised to get us out of useless wars- and 8 years later we are still there)
You can't "unrig" it from outside, because the ones who rig it are the ones who make the rules. You HAVE to get inside to unrig it.
And I little to no faith that HucksterTrump will do anything to unrig the system.
Apples and BMWs.
But in the real world, that's unlikely to happen, so we have to either find our zen place about the shit-show, or plot a course of slow correction towards something better.
Slow correction is possible, but could take 50-100 years to really happen.
They're both equally vile, just in different ways.
Do you have a verifiable source for this conclusion that you can share? When you say "liberal" concepts do you mean the Democrat definition of "liberal", or the original definition that still exists everywhere else in the world ?
Johnson's statements since he became the candidate have been anything but libertarian, and imo (without having taken a statistically valid poll ;^) an overwhelming majority of libertarians -those who understand what it means to be "libertarian" as opposed to those who claim to be libertarian without any understanding of it- do not support Johnson's non-libertarian and anti-free-market proposals. I suspect they are stunned by the stupidity Johnson has shown with this proposal.
Just about that time I opened my first store, and 11 or 12 hours per day didn't leave much time for anything else. When I got to the point where I could finally take a breath, I started thinking about my family and expanding the biz. Activism of any kind too a back seat for the next 15 years.
By the way, I should not have started my first post with "Today."
Instead of making a decision on a chopped down interview, and speculating what "fee" means go READ his platform and stance on the issue and you'll at least understand his mind set regarding his environmental concerns.
Yes, Gary is environmentally conscience (I have no problem with that), but he does not believe in penalizing Business, he wants to incentivize them to be clean.
Hillary wants to tax all of us, and send that revenue to China.
Trump is just a fail all around.
And we can't have "NOTA" for President - hell, if that actually happened we might get Zippy for 4 more years.
Pick your battles - Johnson is a far better choice than Hillary or Trump.
I agree, I would like more details on that "fee", but regardless of what it is - I'm sure Johnson would make a better President then the other 2 chuckle-heads.
Further, I'm sure it's a low priority item for a Johnson administration, and was primarily stated to appease Bernie people he's trying to swing.
I looked again but it appears they are all done and over with however will keep looking might be one in the works for October or early November. Damn that tv slot time must be real expensive!
Trump is a straight shooter- he tells it like he sees it (politically incorrect). We need that . If all he did was destroy political correctness, I would consider his presidency helpful to the country. In addition, he will be far better than Hillary in foreign relations and at least stick up for USA and get some respect for us. Economically, he has a business background and wont do STUPID things like Hillary has and will do in the future. Johnson will go nowhere in this election, period. It would take far more consistency and education of the populace before he could hope to win.
You're not getting a wall. No one will tossed over it.
There will be no tariffs.
Trump will be ineffective
But down here in taco land the word is the new plan is pay Mexico to build a wall to protect themselves from the Gringos. ja ja ja ja which in spanish is ha ha ha ha.
An ineffective Trump is a thousands of percent better than a day under Hillary.
100% sure thing vs a lottery ticket vs are they breathing or just changing position and viably ineffective.
The Millenials like Johnson though. Some of them. 66 days in motor voter land Hillary better wind uip those illegals and teach them enough to register and vote.
I'd wait until the Libertarian Town House is done and then think about Life in a Socialist Autocracy more totalitarian than Obamas version.
Meanwhile here in the Guch my tacos are getting cold excuse me?
IF he gets in, there will be a wall, there will be tariffs because his ego won't let him fail.
"The Art of the Deal" ...could be, I suppose. I prefer straight forward dealing. Not being able to get into his head, I find it difficult to put faith in what could be. If the man does become POTUS, I hope Tariffs are just a negotiating ploy. They are simply bad economics. It is much better to reduce burdens here as incentive than to be punitive and risk trade wars.
Respectfully,
O.A.
At FreedomFest2016 in Las Vegas, moreover, he made a case that CO2 is good for plants. He is the real thing, an honest man. That he is not a slick performer like the hard-boiled politicos is actually a virtue. I spoke with him in Vegas, and he vowed to remain honest. He has been a Libertarian at heart and in his principles since 1971.
Except for the three or four of you on this thread with a clear vision that Johnson is the best and only choice (thanks, db), y'all might want to rethink your misplaced emotional firestorms and restore your original appreciation of Gary Johnson.
Even if this headline were true, though, he's still at least 1,000 times better than candidates who we know won't cut the federal budget.
Rational is far superior to rationale.
There was a time when the LP was based on Principle, but those days are long gone. Today's Libertarians are scattered all over the philosophical map. Very recently I read the Arizona's Libertarian Platform, https://www.azlp.org/platform.php -- reading that was a SHOCK! Nothing within that suggests that Mises and Rothbard might survive. That platform seems both obsolete and awful,.
All that leaves me feeling both "homeless" and hopeless.
Gone is whatever vote I might have given to Johnson (not that he would have won anyway).
Me dino started to get put off when Gary said that there was an eleven foot ladder for a ten-foot fence, but even then I did not know there were libtard libertarians up until now.
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to the [various proxy] series...to hide the decline."
Surely Mr. Johnson knows: no mere tax would suffice, if "global warming" is half the threat he now seems to think it is. He would at once have to convert to building a special train and laying on "whistle stops" to campaign. But not one of these global warming activists (except perhaps Ed Begley, Jr.) want to pay any of the price they demand we pay.
Too bad he has a few poison pills in his thinking.
Maybe he should have put down the bong a bit sooner.
There is no acceptable choice for objectivists that will end up on the ballot in every state. Perhaps it is time to give the Constitution Party another look and some support... Who is John Galt?
Respectfully,
O.A.
Second, get a candidate who is far more intellectually consistent than Johnson.