Gary Johnson is a Complete Idiot

[TheComebackKid]

Good to see him get a little scrutiny

 

[UpaLoompa]

Write what you'd like about his philosophy, but it's silly to say he wasn't the single most consistent politician we've had in the better part of a century.

Saying it on your part doesn't make it so.
The guy was continually reelected on the basis of his successful pork barrelling and was nonetheless vocal in his deriding of pork. It was ridiculous despite all the silly justifications I've heard from him and his supporters. It also is hilarious that so many think he gave a fuck about personal liberty, he was fine with restricting liberty as long as it was done at the state level. For such an avowed supporter of the founding fathers you'd think he might have, at least once, read the federalist papers.

Paul's support was simply a cult of personality.


Oh yeah, and lol GOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Why is compulsion necessary? Don't you have a demand for a relatively safe product? If so why wouldn't companies have the incentive to get their QC or manufacturing process evaluated from an outside source? Why wouldn't there be a supply?

Right, just look at the effort tobacco companies went through to ensure their product was safe.

 

[Greoric]

Saying it on your part doesn't make it so.
The guy was continually reelected on the basis of his successful pork barrelling and was nonetheless vocal in his deriding of pork. It was ridiculous despite all the silly justifications I've heard from him and his supporters. It also is hilarious that so many think he gave a fuck about personal liberty, he was fine with restricting liberty as long as it was done at the state level. For such an avowed supporter of the founding fathers you'd think he might have, at least once, read the federalist papers.

Paul's support was simply a cult of personality.

Oh yeah, and lol GOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He was a congressman, not part of the state legislature. So yes, one of the arguments was to first get the power away from the federal government, and allocated to the states where it belongs.

I'm impressed you even gave a glance at the federalist papers. Wow!

And by the way I'm up 29% YTD on my Au position alone. When it starts to really spike, my PM box will always be open to tell you the dealers I recommend. You have but to ask my brother.

 

[Renard]

He supports the TPP? Just when you thought he couldn't be more unattractive. SJW ideology with a republican's economic policy lol

 

[Greoric]

Right, just look at the effort tobacco companies went through to ensure their product was safe.

You've just made a case for market regulation. Despite the government's monopoly in that space they still couldn't do anything could they?

Moreover, what regulatory company worth its salt would bank its reputation on supporting them? That's a signal to the consumer in and of itself if a large company can't even get the backing of a third party evaluator.

 

[UpaLoompa]

He was a congressman, not part of the state legislature. So yes, one of the arguments was to first get the power away from the federal government, and allocated to the states where it belongs.

You give Paul too much credit, he wanted states to have the authority to restrict individual liberty. He is on the record stating as much (specifically with regards to the Lawerence ruling despite calling the law itself dumb). That Paul castigated the federal government while wanting to protect local power to restrict individual freedom from federal intrusion (see similar statements regarding the CRA) suggests that he was not a libertarian.

I'm impressed you even gave a glance at the federalist papers. Wow!

I'm relatively sure I'm more familiar with them than Paul given his utter disdain for Federalist 10.

And by the way I'm up 29% YTD on my Au position alone. When it starts to really spike, my PM box will always be open to tell you the dealers I recommend. You have but to ask my brother.

Hope you didn't buy in 2012 when Paul was most vocal about gold.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I'm impressed you even gave a glance at the federalist papers. Wow!

As an aside, what about my posting suggests I wouldn't be familiar with them?

 

[PhitePhan]

I love how people still don't understand that libertarianism absolutely demands the free movement of labor without government interference, i.e. open borders. Saying you are a libertarian while supporting tough immigration laws is like being a liberal who wants to see government out of our pocketbooks and back in to our bedrooms.

Every political philosophy requires a blending of ideals versus practical considerations, although you seem to be describing anarchy rather than Libertarianism. My understanding is that personal freedom and liberty ought to be maximized, while government regulation/interference ought to be minimized. I would think there would be more of this sentiment around the irreparable harm that often follows government intervention.

I think most practical Libertarians believe in, and even emphasize, a state that provides stability of law and agreed upon rules of conduct (more or less).

 

[sickc0d3r]

I like how free trade and allowing companies to hire anyone they want suddenly isn't free market libertarian anymore.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Every political philosophy requires a blending of ideals versus practical considerations, although you seem to be describing anarchy rather than Libertarianism.

Open borders is actually a more common sentiment among libertarians than the opposite.

 

[kpt018]

Why is compulsion necessary? Don't you have a demand for a relatively safe product? If so why wouldn't companies have the incentive to get their QC or manufacturing process evaluated from an outside source? Why wouldn't there be a supply?

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Let's take an obvious example, like companies that pollute the air/water or burn carbon. Reducing these costs money and they actually have an incentive to avoid the issue. What do we do about these companies? What is the libertarian take?

A less obvious example are what we've seen in the auto industry. With the proper laws in place we see vehicles that are more efficient on gas with lower pollution. This would not have been achieved on it's own.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Right, just look at the effort tobacco companies went through to ensure their product was safe.

Is it possible to make a healthy cigarette?

 

[Fawlty]

Johnson is an idiot because he isn't crazy enough?

Jesus what a mess. I don't like Johnson all that much, but his service in government has at least taught him some basic respect for humanity, unlike his more "non aggressively" aligned libertarian batshit fucking crazy detractors.

 

[grimballer]

I love how people still don't understand that libertarianism absolutely demands the free movement of labor without government interference, i.e. open borders. Saying you are a libertarian while supporting tough immigration laws is like being a liberal who wants to see government out of our pocketbooks and back in to our bedrooms.

Notion of state n statehood still exists under libertarianism.

The role of the govt in libertarianism is protecting individual rights within n protecting citizens from outside forces.

There's still this thing called law n order that many on the left just seem to have forgotten about

 

[grimballer]

Paul wasn't a libertarian, he was a kook and horribly inconsistent on pretty much everything. Like cordless said, most of you don't seem to know what libertarianism actually means.

Nope he was consistent. Some of his ideas might not be popular by today's standards n seem to heartless, however he argues greater good is achieved when govt doesn't get involved n citizens are free to live their lives as they choose

 

[PhitePhan]

Open borders is actually a more common sentiment among libertarians than the opposite.

Interesting. After doing a little reading I can concede you are correct (based on my cursory search on Wikipedia). I guess I assumed that property rights and non-interventionism necessitated defined borders?

Regardless, thanks for the info!

 

[forum poster]

Neither should a sensible Libertarian after factoring in the realities of our current situation (i.e. government redistribution). If the rest of their policies were in place then it wouldn't matter which people were coming and going. But they're not, so it's fucking dumb to have open borders. Probably dumb regardless, but especially dumb considering the proliferation of social programs, etc.

See, that's the problem. Libertarians don't factor in the realities of any current situation. To do that would make them not a libertarian. Gary Johnson is still one of the saner ones at the libertarian convention, that still doesn't say much though.

 

[ncordless]

Notion of state n statehood still exists under libertarianism.

The role of the govt in libertarianism is protecting individual rights within n protecting citizens from outside forces.

There's still this thing called law n order that many on the left just seem to have forgotten about

Half true. The government is not their to protect individual liberty. It is the thing individual liberty needs protection from. The state IS there to provide for the common defense. But that does not include protecting yer jerb. That's just anti-free market. It infringes upon the individual rights of the employer and the employee.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

See, that's the problem. Libertarians don't factor in the realities of any current situation. To do that would make them not a libertarian. Gary Johnson is still one of the saner ones at the libertarian convention, that still doesn't say much though.

They don't? Are they the only party where you forfeit membership if you prove yourself to be pragmatic?