Gary Johnson is a Complete Idiot

[ncordless]

Yes, it's called a moral hazard. The position of individual liberty implies that both the check and reward are present. If government removes one of those from the market, then compulsion is kind of necessary to take on the other side of the equation.

In this instance its greater border security. We have a welfare state that can be and is being taken advantage of by illegal foreigners. The government added a carrot, but also didn't add a stick.

So to you as a libertarian, you believe government regulation of the freedom of contract and the freedom of movement of labor is warranted because some of those people may utilize their freedom to take advantage of the welfare state and thus deprive you of your money? Really? If so, it must be okay to regulate the freedom to bear arms on account that some of those people may utilize their freedom to deprive you of your right to life, correct?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So to you as a libertarian, you believe government regulation of the freedom of contract and the freedom of movement of labor is warranted because some of those people may utilize their freedom to take advantage of the welfare state and thus deprive you of your money? Really? If so, it must be okay to regulate the freedom to bear arms on account that some of those people may utilize their freedom to deprive you of your right to life, correct?

Can't come up with a good analogy?

 

[Ruprecht]

When you're an editor for Infowars and Prison Planet, your accusations of "idiot" don't hold much water.

 

[Greoric]

So to you as a libertarian, you believe government regulation of the freedom of contract and the freedom of movement of labor is warranted because some of those people may utilize their freedom to take advantage of the welfare state and thus deprive you of your money? Really? If so, it must be okay to regulate the freedom to bear arms on account that some of those people may utilize their freedom to deprive you of your right to life, correct?

No, but I think you misunderstand what a moral hazard is.

To your question, why would their opportunity to take my life, therefore necessitate that I then have to let go of my right to bears arms? I don't understand how you're drawing a connection there.

 

[Greoric]

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

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

I think you're misinterpreting his intent. I don't know that he advocated for states to pass those laws. He just acknowledged that it wasn't the federal government's business to do so.

He just acknowledged the more local the government the more effective they could be at making those decisions for their electorate. The same goes for business or any kind of organization. The more local and intimate the knowledge the more effective you'll end up being.

As for the gold, yeah I was a little early. But its better to be years early rather than a day too late.

 

[ncordless]

No, but I think you misunderstand what a moral hazard is.

To your question, why would their opportunity to take my life, therefore necessitate that I then have to let go of my right to bears arms? I don't understand how you're drawing a connection there.

The same problem exists in your argument. You say I must have my right to contract infringed because there is an off chance that whoever I happen to do business with might utilize the welfare state. Why do you draw the conclusion that I must have my right to freedom of contract infringed upon so that I cannot hire Pedro from Nogales to pick my beans for cheap because the government steals from you and a small portion of that may or may not end up going to Pedro?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

As for the gold, yeah I was a little early. But its better to be years early rather than a day too late.

The ol' mutual fund has taken a beating the last couple years, but 2016 has been good (to the tune of 86%). Such are the ups and downs of hedging.

 

[Greoric]

The ol' mutual fund has taken a beating the last couple years, but 2016 has been good (to the tune of 86%). Such are the ups and downs of hedging.

You're up 86% YTD on a mutual fund???? WTF?

 

[Ruprecht]

"Closed borders Libertarianism" is the standard Mises.org approach.

 

[ncordless]

"Closed borders Libertarianism" is the standard Mises.org approach.

Interestingly, Ron Paul has a article at the top of the newsfeed there arguing for open borders right now.

 

[Ruprecht]

Interestingly, Ron Paul has a article at the top of the newsfeed there arguing for open borders right now.

I'm suprised they allowed it. Everything I've read there has supported Rothbard's about face.

Edit: Ah... I just read it. It's less about open borders and more about eliminating social spending. Makes sense.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You're up 86% YTD on a mutual fund???? WTF?

That's what it says when I type in the ticker ID. <cheer>

 

[ncordless]

I'm suprised they allowed it. Everything I've read there has supported Rothbard's about face.

Edit: Ah... I just read it. It's less about open borders and more about eliminating social spending. Makes sense.

That's where the rubber really hits the road in the US and the difference between real libertarians and those who just kind of think they like libertarianism but really prefer nationalism. Take away the welfare state objection(which is a terrible one, really), would you support open borders then? If yes, you are an actual libertarian. If no, you are probably just a conservative who wants to keep "them" out.

 

[ncordless]

For the record, I am not in favor of open borders. I think we can and should regulate the labor market to a certain extent for our overall good, just like anything else.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

That's where the rubber really hits the road in the US and the difference between real libertarians and those who just kind of think they like libertarianism but really prefer nationalism. Take away the welfare state objection(which is a terrible one, really), would you support open borders then? If yes, you are an actual libertarian. If no, you are probably just a conservative who wants to keep "them" out.

Why's that?

I guess I wouldn't be a Libertarian because to me another reason to keep people out is incompatible worldviews.

For the record, I am not in favor of open borders.

What's your justifacation for being racist then?

 

[Ruprecht]

That's where the rubber really hits the road in the US and the difference between real libertarians and those who just kind of think they like libertarianism but really prefer nationalism. Take away the welfare state objection(which is a terrible one, really), would you support open borders then? If yes, you are an actual libertarian. If no, you are probably just a conservative who wants to keep "them" out.

Yeah, I'm always surprised if Mises.org, CATO or Lewrockwell can publish an article without puncturing their paper mache veneer of vulgar libertarianism.

 

[grimballer]

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.

You are correct, under libertarianism there would be no minimum wage n whom ever wants to work for less money will get the job.

However that doesn't mean ppl can just come in illegally n take jobs from citizens. They have to be citizens 1st or have some work permit. In other words come legally.

Rights are there for citizens

 

[ncordless]

Why's that?

Because if liberty is rightly infringed for so attenuated reason like the money that the government steals from you anyway might go to a particular type of person, then it can be infringed for just about anything. Libertarianism is meaningless if that's the case. The money the government steals from me might go to subsidize Exxon/Pedro, therefore Exxon/Pedro can't do business? And I can't do business with Exxon/Pedro?

I guess I wouldn't be a Libertarian because to me another reason to keep people out is incompatible worldviews.

Yep. That's dyed in the wool social conservatism. Definitely not libertarianism.

What's your justifacation for being racist then?

Don't be dense. Immigration regulations are not per se racist. They can be racist, but they are not necessarily so. I think regulations that strike a balance between protection for labor and the rights and liberties of those seeking to better their lives here can create the most good.

 

[in the]

“If you use the term ‘illegal immigrants,’ that is very incendiary to the Hispanic population here in this country,” Johnson insisted. Asked for an explanation, Johnson said “illegal immigrant” is offensive because “It just is. It just is.”

Because all Hispanics are illegal? That makes no sense



In response, Johnson pointed his finger, yelling, “They came into this country because they couldn’t get in legally.

So they ARE illegal??? So, if I walk into someone's house uninvited, would I be an undocumented trespasser?



"And the jobs existed. And you or I would have done the same thing.”

OUR jobs are not for outsiders who come here illegally


"“When you go back decades ago, this was not considered illegal. When you go back decades, which involve a lot of these 11 million, it wasn’t the same issue as it is today,” Johnson said."

No, they were ALWAYS considered illegal, we just choose to turn a blind eye for decades





Gary Johnson may have shot himself in the foot with conservatives who don't want to vote for Trump

I've already seen one person who said he was voting for Johnson say it's over for him now, there's no way he'd vote for someone triggered over something so unimportant.

Gary Johnson really came across as a sexless, gender studies feminist in that video.

 

[ncordless]

You are correct, under libertarianism there would be no minimum wage n whom ever wants to work for less money will get the job.

However that doesn't mean ppl can just come in illegally n take jobs from citizens. They have to be citizens 1st or have some work permit. In other words come legally.

Rights are there for citizens

Where do these rights come from if they are not human rights but rather are conferred by the government through citizenship? That's Positivism, bro. No natural rights for you? If so, then your whole foundation is made of sand.