Gary Johnson is a Complete Idiot

[Jack V Savage]

He's still better than the alternatives, like Bernie even if you don't agree fully with what he says, he at least seems to sincerely be in it for altruistic reasons

Yeah, even though he has really bad policy ideas and he's not very bright, he seems like a nice guy so we should elect him president. He might feel bad if he doesn't win, and it's the least that we as a nation can do.

 

[no fat chicks]

Yeah, even though he has really bad policy ideas and he's not very bright, he seems like a nice guy so we should elect him president. He might feel bad if he doesn't win, and it's the least that we as a nation can do.

His policies are better than war hawk crooked Hilary though

 

[Jack V Savage]

His policies are better than war hawk crooked Hilary though

Facepalm.

 

[no fat chicks]

Facepalm.

There's literally hours of face palm worthy clips of crooked Hilary on YouTube.
Take is easy captain DNC

 

[klnOmega]

I miss Ron Paul.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There's literally hours of face palm worthy clips of crooked Hilary on YouTube.
Take is easy captain DNC

Meow.

 

[TheGreatA]

Yes it can, with the exact same solution. Move to a different country.

And where are you going to escape once the entire world is federal? What then? Another planet, maybe?

Small scale tyranny is always preferable to large scale tyranny.

 

[TheStruggle]

 

[Jack V Savage]

Apparently this isn't new. From 2000:

June 6 -- Boosting his friend George W. Bush to reporters, Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico recalls a conversation they had at a conference on state government. ''George turns to me and says, 'What are they talking about?' I said, 'I don't know.' He said, 'You don't know a thing, do you?' And I said, 'Not one thing.' He said, 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/28/opinion/public-interests-while-you-were-sleeping.html

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

For example, state's right's tards always talk about the 10th but apparently never read the 9th.

These people you're imagining, what are the prominent arguments they make that fail to account for the 9th?

 

[Greoric]

Libertarians support one policy they claim to oppose in principle (borders) as a pragmatic response to other anti-libertarian policies the government has enacted. My question is: why don't libertarians support other policies, like social programs, as a pragmatic response to anti-libertarian policies (like IP laws)?

Because there isn't a moral hazard created by intellectual property laws that would necessitate welfare. There isn't a straight line from one to another, like there's a straight line from immigration policy to welfare recipients. And also just like the addition of the FDIC affects the activity of banks to become more reckless, and thus requires a solution for regulatory law like Glass Steagall.

 

[Greoric]

He's saying the local tyranny would be worse, which is a valid point in some cases.

Local government is almost always more effective than federal governments though for the same reasons privatization is better than any governance at all; proximity of information.

Local governors will have a better "pulse" of their people than someone trying to organize hundreds of millions of people many thousands of miles away.

 

[Greoric]

Basically, yes. The more pragmatic a libertarian candidate is the less libertarian he is. Watch the libertarian party debate. Any response that isn't "Hell NO, the gubberment has no right to say what I can do" gets boo'd. Should the government have laws that prevent the sale of heroin to children? HELL NO. Should the government have laws that prevent blind people from driving? HELL NO. WOOOOOO LIBERTY.
What's the best and only solution to any and every problem ever? The free market of course.

Reads like you're after the easy solution rather than the best solution (whatever that might be)?

 

[Greoric]

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.

This is beautiful because you're running up against the threshold of moral thought, where most people can't cross. People usually can't get past associating morality with anything but what the "law of the land" is.

It plagues many Trump supporters' arguments. When you ask them why shouldn't we have undocumented immigrants coming across the border? The depth of their answer doesn't extend past, "Well because they're illegal!"

 

[UpaLoompa]

These people you're imagining, what are the prominent arguments they make that fail to account for the 9th?

Pretty much all strict constructionists and anytime someone brings up "imagined rights".
Hell, the "right to privacy"--which actually is based on well reasoned arguments and other amendments--would be one prominent example.

 

[Greoric]

Hell, the "right to privacy"--which actually is based on well reasoned arguments and other amendments--would be one prominent example.

It's easier than referring people to the fourth.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Pretty much all strict constructionists and anytime someone brings up "imagined rights".
Hell, the "right to privacy"--which actually is based on well reasoned arguments and other amendments--would be one prominent example.

I'm not good with labels. By constructionist you mean people who believe the law should be adhered to as written and intended, as opposed to using creative definitions to facilitate the desired outcome? By "imagined rights" you mean something like having the state provide medical care? "Right to privacy" mean something like being secure in your effects from searches without a warrant?

So now what arguments are being made by people who advocate more control at the state/local level and how are they refuted by the 9th Amendment?

 

[UpaLoompa]

It's easier than referring people to the fourth.

So, you're agreeing with me?

 

[UpaLoompa]

I'm not good with labels. By constructionist you mean people who believe the law should be adhered to as written and intended, as opposed to using creative definitions to facilitate the desired outcome? By "imagined rights" you mean something like having the state provide medical care? "Right to privacy" mean something like being secure in your effects from searches without a warrant?

Are you playing dumb?

So now what arguments are being made by people who advocate more control at the state/local level and how are they refuted by the 9th Amendment?

I've already covered this a few times with my comments about the CRA etc.

 

[Greoric]

So, you're agreeing with me?

Perhaps, were you associating the "right to privacy" as an "imagined right"? If so then, no. The right to privacy has its equivalent... the fourth.