Gary Johnson is better than Hillary or Trump: Make America classical liberal again!

a reply to: Aazadan

How well are we being protected from the corporations at the moment? Thinking of the Flint water crisis, and the potential for many more problems like it, I'm not sure the government is doing a great job--as is--with regard to protecting the interests of the people. In other words, how much control does our government really have at the moment? How much already belongs to or operates in a manner favorable to corporate interests?

As for Somalia, I really can't see our country becoming Somalia. There are too many factors involved in why Somalia is Somalia and the US is the US.

a reply to: SisterDelirium

Well, Flint happened precisely because the EPA guidelines were circumvented. It wasn't the case of the EPA trying and failing, it was a case where the EPA was weakened and the water company and city management made the decision that was most profitable.

Something similar just happened to a town down here in southern Ohio, actually on the West Virginia side. They started doing some fracking locally, one of the chemicals was found to be toxic at a lower concentration than previously believed, the standards were changed, and now the ground water is tainted and considered unsafe to drink. Then the city started lobbying the EPA to change the drinking water standards back to what they were, knowing that it's going to cause huge amounts of cancer in a few years but also knowing that if they end up with officially unsafe water the town will literally die.

I'll trust the EPA's judgment any day, it's in their interest to not screw up. It's when companies (sometimes city run companies) start trying to circumvent those standards that problems happen.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Gary Johnsons's biggest problem, and this is true of the Libertarian platform in general is that most of the authority he wants to take away from the government is going to go to corporations. Having something of a democratic process we have a say over some of this while it remains under government control, but if it goes entirely to the private sector we give that up.

Less government = less government to lobby to. Remember the Monsanto protection act?

For example, with industrial regulations he assumes the corporations won't dump toxins into the environment Like those same corporations are going to be punished if they control the legislation that protects thembecause the people working at those corporations don't want chemicals dropped in their back yard either,protected by government via lobbyists and pro-corporate representation but there is very little of a collective say to stop it and competition demands it. You can look at Somalia right now which is the most Libertarian country on earthNot really as they don't believe in the NAP and classical liberalism and...they do have rulers. surprise surprise...nice try though., they've resorted to good old fashioned piracyDoes that follow the NAP? no, taking over shipsDoes that follow the NAP? that dump toxins on their coast and they're forcedThey are not forced to do that to do that because their government is too weakOh they have a government. to tell these corporations The corporations can bribe the government into dumping anyway. There goes the government defending the us from greedy corporations when they are lobbied by corporations and have the legislature in their pocket. much less other nations "No".


Not only does this concern me that our own companies will start dumping toxins in the US if we remove these regulationsDidn't stop Exxon,Shell,BP and the hydro-fracking industry. What about pesticide contaminants in drinking water and milk? Nuclear power-plants leaking radioactive waste? What about the coal stack power-plants in China and the US putting out pollution? Did government stop that? No. It still happens., but it concerns me that other nations will be able to start dumping their trash here because our protections revert from the collective voice of 50 states to the lone voice of one state that can enforce their will with merely a national guard rather than a real military.

You could fine them for dumping the waste here so they end up paying for the damage they have done.

a reply to: Aazadan

In Flint the decided to use river water which was more corrosive than treated water. That wasn't really pollution. It was an oversight and yes to be cost effective. Surely experts should have known better but it's not the same as fracking

If people were to vote for regulation through their reps their is nothing in Gary Johnson record that would indicate he would go against that. Quite the opposite. He is a very good statesman and has a very good record.

Also he would be attacking the legal and lob y system that allows these crimes to go unpunished. I don't think Johnson has shown any record of being anything other than a centrist with libertarian philosophy in his approach.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Bolding replies in a quote is pretty difficult to respond to so I'm just going to use reply and pick a couple points.

NAP requires both sides to be committed to non aggression. I like Gary Johnson on a few points and I may even vote for him, I just happen to think he's completely off his rocker on others.

On your point of lobbying, everyone lobbies. If you remove government regulations you're relying on the corporations to stay within socially acceptable rules using consumer purchasing power as the balancing mechanism. I simply think there's a better way. Rather than cut off government so that the corporations can't peddle their influence, I would rather increase the lobbying power of the people. Just like consumers buying a corporations products the tax dollars that flow from the public to the politicians is our public lobbying power. It also just so happens that the public has much more money than the lobbyists do. For a mere $10 in additional taxes from everyone, that instead goes to public interest and keeping our congressmen loyal to us rather than the corporations we would add $3 billion in additional lobbying funds to our voice. Last year there was $3.32 billion spent in lobbying funds by private industry. For $10 from each and every one of us we could have the same voice as those corporations.

As far as fining them goes, you can't fine domestic companies because we're already doing that. If you repeal the regulations then there's nothing to fine them over. If you fine foreign countries, good luck collecting what from their point is a made up, arbitrary debt. There is no binding agreement between the two parties to pay it.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Aazadan

In Flint the decided to use river water which was more corrosive than treated water. That wasn't really pollution. It was an oversight and yes to be cost effective. Surely experts should have known better but it's not the same as fracking

An oversight that would have been avoided had EPA regulations been adhered to rather than circumvented.

I realize that Flint wasn't caused by fracking (as I said, it's a similar issue with water pollution not exactly the same), but it was caused by pollution from decades past. That water was polluted and required being cleaned precisely because of a weak or non existent EPA in decades past. Flint was only possible because of that legacy, and then happened because the city made poor decisions and went around guidelines that were in place to prevent it.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: SisterDelirium

Well, Flint happened precisely because the EPA guidelines were circumvented. It wasn't the case of the EPA trying and failing, it was a case where the EPA was weakened and the water company and city management made the decision that was most profitable.

Something similar just happened to a town down here in southern Ohio, actually on the West Virginia side. They started doing some fracking locally, one of the chemicals was found to be toxic at a lower concentration than previously believed, the standards were changed, and now the ground water is tainted and considered unsafe to drink. Then the city started lobbying the EPA to change the drinking water standards back to what they were, knowing that it's going to cause huge amounts of cancer in a few years but also knowing that if they end up with officially unsafe water the town will literally die.

I'll trust the EPA's judgment any day, it's in their interest to not screw up. It's when companies (sometimes city run companies) start trying to circumvent those standards that problems happen.

It's certainly fair to say that corporations can't be allowed to run amok. There needs to be oversight, but the oversight also has to he consistent/not easily circumvented. If it's not consistent and easy to get around, I'm just wondering how much better off we are? Do it right or don't pretend to do it. It lends to a false sense of security.

As for Gary Johnson/Bill Weld, the good thing is we're not electing a dictator. There are still three branches of government. Personally, I would rather vote for a Johnson presidency because I believe it would have a better result (working with the other branches in a nonpartisan way) than a Clinton or Trump presidency. Again, we have experienced administrators versus a member of the political class who serves as a happy water-bearer for elite corporate/political interests and a circus ringmaster who may very well be slightly unhinged.

Johnson has a good shot at winning Utah. The Mormons find Trump offensive but, Romney and the other GOP leadership do not want to give Utah to the DNC so the push has been for Johnson. Trump is denied state he has to have, The DNC does not get a foothold in Red State and Johnson is not a threat to GOP in general. Polling in Utah has Clinton and Trump tied and other just slightly leading. This could be a tactic for the GOP to adapt, in a few other Red States, ends any chance of a Trump win and does no long term harm to the party that seeing states like Georgia, Kansas and Arizona going Democrat.

a reply to: MrSpad

Interesting. Bill Weld, the VP pick, has been a Romney fundraiser. With Romney etal behind a campaign to deny Trump votes, it could be that the LP is being used by them for this purpose only.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Bolding replies in a quote is pretty difficult to respond to so I'm just going to use reply and pick a couple points.
As long as other people can see it then it is ok.
NAP requires both sides to be committed to non aggression.Not true. I like Gary Johnson on a few points and I may even vote for him, I just happen to think he's completely off his rocker on others.

On your point of lobbying, everyone lobbies. If you remove government regulations you're relying on the corporations to stay within socially acceptable rules using consumer purchasing power as the balancing mechanism.and with government they can buy favorable legislation and use laws to shutdown competition and to protect them from civil or legal prosecution. I simply think there's a better way.limiting government Rather than cut off government so that the corporations can't peddle their influence, I would rather increase the lobbying power of the people.Isn't that what democracy is Just like consumers buying a corporations products the tax dollars that flow from the public to the politicians is our public lobbying power. It also just so happens that the public has much more money than the lobbyists do.why do we have to bribe government into doing its job? For a mere $10 in additional taxes from everyone, that instead goes to public interest and keeping our congressmen loyal to us rather than the corporations we would add $3 billion in additional lobbying funds to our voice. Last year there was $3.32 billion spent in lobbying funds by private industry. For $10 from each and every one of us we could have the same voice as those corporations.

As far as fining them goes, you can't fine domestic companies because we're already doing that.it doesn't stop them either. If you repeal the regulations they can be barred from entering US waters by the coast guard until they pay the fine then there's nothing to fine them over. If you fine foreign countries,I said nothing about fining another country good luck collecting what from their point is a made up, arbitrary debt. There is no binding agreement between the two parties to pay it.

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: MrSpad

Interesting. Bill Weld, the VP pick, has been a Romney fundraiser. With Romney etal behind a campaign to deny Trump votes, it could be that the LP is being used by them for this purpose only.

You do realize they are Govenors from the same state though right (Romney and Weld) and that weld has always leaned libertarian?

Romney, Weld, and Johnson are all centrist in terms of working with the other side.

a reply to: luthier

Yes to "?". But I disagree that they are all "centrists". Just because Charles Koch and Bernie Sanders might agree on a point does not make either a political centrist.

Romney has never been a Libertarian. Which is what makes his political support of a LP ticket intriguing.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
As long as other people can see it then it is ok.

I disagree, but suit yourself. It's just poor etiquette in general. Forum posts are 50% content, and 50% aesthetics.

and with government they can buy favorable legislation and use laws to shutdown competition and to protect them from civil or legal prosecution.

Without regulations in place they can do the same thing. Powerful corporations have the time, money, and energy to fight the government in court. Even with things as they currently stand the corporations often times win. How do you expect the government to ever fight back and actually protect the customer if you weaken the governments position further?

Isn't that what democracy is
...
why do we have to bribe government into doing its job?

No. Democracy is the act of the masses stating what they desire and governing by mob rule. Lobbying typically involves experts in the field engaged in 1 on 1 education/propaganda with those who make the decisions. Lobbying is essentially the private sector version of being a government advisor... except there's a lot of advisors.

Unfortunately, the same level of education is not available to the general public. Mass media confuses and simplifies the issues, while special interest groups who either support/oppose a policy do their best to obfuscate the issue and leave the average person with confusing, conflicting viewpoints.

There's also the issue that it relies on the average member of the voting public to be willing to put forth the effort to be informed and people aren't willing to do that. It doesn't help that many of the most important topics to debate happen to be very boring. Net Neutrality, foreign policy with Russian border states, trade deals with Australia, cutoff point for lead limits in water, the nuances between 47 minutes vs 51 minutes a day of math education in public schools. It's all important but it's not exactly thrilling material to go over.

Furthermore, even out of those people who do have an interest in these subjects no one is capable of becoming an expert in all of it which means you're forced to pick and choose where you're going to be an expert and have an opinion worth lobbying for, and where you're just going to have an uninformed opinion as a regular member of the public.

Lobbying fixes this to an extent, because experts in their field actually get to advise on matters they know something about. There's only so many minutes in the day to listen to lobbyists though, so those in power have to pick and choose who has their ear. Often times they pick based on who can provide the most funding for their projects. Would you rather it be corporations or would you rather spend $10 on your taxes and get your own public lobbyists? For $20 you could double what corporations spend. For $100 you could make it financially unsustainable for the corporations to even attempt to lobby.

they can be barred from entering US waters by the coast guard until they pay the fine

If you repeal the regulations, what legal basis do you have to fine them? The laws and regulations are the rules. It would be a failure of the rule of law to see a company do something legal but wrong and punish them anyways. If you want to stop behavior you should use law. That way it's consistent.

I like the guy. He's likable. He's also unelectable.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
As long as other people can see it then it is ok.

I disagree, but suit yourself. It's just poor etiquette in general. Forum posts are 50% content, and 50% aesthetics.

and with government they can buy favorable legislation and use laws to shutdown competition and to protect them from civil or legal prosecution.

solution: Limit government to bare minimum and ban lobbying.
Without regulations in place they can do the same thing. Powerful corporations have the time, money, and energy to fight the government in court. Even with things as they currently stand the corporations often times win. How do you expect the government to ever fight back and actually protect the customer if you weaken the governments position further?
Who regulates the regulators? Corporations can control governments. Why do you think government is going to defend you when it has been hijacked by corporate interests?

Isn't that what democracy is
...
why do we have to bribe government into doing its job?

No. Democracy is the act of the masses stating what they desire and governing by mob rule. Lobbying typically involves experts in the field engaged in 1 on 1 education/propaganda with those who make the decisions. Lobbying is essentially the private sector version of being a government advisor... except there's a lot of advisors.
Democracy is the dictatorship of the majority. It is not ideal either.
Unfortunately, the same level of education is not available to the general public. Mass media confuses and simplifies the issues, while special interest groups who either support/oppose a policy do their best to obfuscate the issue and leave the average person with confusing, conflicting viewpoints.
Libertarianism is not confusing. Ownership of your body is not confusing. Victimless crime is not confusing. Not initializing force is not confusing.

There's also the issue that it relies on the average member of the voting public to be willing to put forth the effort to be informed and people aren't willing to do that.I am sorry you feel that way It doesn't help that many of the most important topics to debate happen to be very boring. Net Neutrality, foreign policy with Russian border states, trade deals with Australia, cutoff point for lead limits in water, the nuances between 47 minutes vs 51 minutes a day of math education in public schools. It's all important but it's not exactly thrilling material to go over.

When has a tyrant ever wanted a an educated subject population? knowledge is power. Power imbalance is what gives them power.That is the rules of the warped game. You don't want the proles to get any ideas.

Furthermore, even out of those people who do have an interest in these subjects no one is capable of becoming an expert in all of it which means you're forced to pick and choose where you're going to be an expert and have an opinion worth lobbying for, and where you're just going to have an uninformed opinion as a regular member of the public.

Of course. Only the "experts" and "officials" are allowed to have an opinion on the subject.

Lobbying fixes this to an extent, because experts in their field actually get to advise on matters they know something about. There's only so many minutes in the day to listen to lobbyists though, so those in power have to pick and choose who has their ear. Often times they pick based on who can provide the most funding for their projects. Would you rather it be corporations or would you rather spend $10 on your taxes and get your own public lobbyists? For $20 you could double what corporations spend. For $100 you could make it financially unsustainable for the corporations to even attempt to lobby.
No. Ban lobbying.

they can be barred from entering US waters by the coast guard until they pay the fine

If you repeal the regulations,where did I say that? what legal basis do you have to fine them? The laws and regulations are the rules. and libertarians don't believe in rules? lol... It would be a failure of the rule of lawSo we don't believe in rule of law? to see a company do something legal but wrong and punish them anyways. If you want to stop behavior you should use law.libertarians believe in laws. That way it's consistent.

originally posted by: intrepid
I like the guy. He's likable. He's also unelectable.

Speaking as a registered Libertarian, I agree.

If "my" party has any aspirations of credibility at the national level the first step is the local and state level. Until we can demonstrate the viability of the platform there we well always be a Congressional, much less Presidential, sideshow.

a reply to: desert

Why do you disagree they are centrists?

Have you looked at their records and how the negotiate with both parties? They were both extremely efficient statesman. Weld in one the most liberal states in the country.

It's very normal for Govenors from the same party (weld a Republican libertarian while in office) I'm the same state to give advice and promote each other.

I would define a centrist as somebody who can work with both sides and bring parties together to pass laws for the people. He may have libertarian principles but he knows how to be an effective statesman which means compromising and working with dissenting ting viewpoints.

a reply to: Aazadan

Well you can fine people for polution under property rights. But yes we need regulations to an extent. However they also need to be comprehensively though out and passed through economists to see what the impact will be and how fast they are rolled out.

Completely disagree about lobbying. That may seem logical bit in practice money power is just too much of a risk. Industry can advise and have meetings with co guess as a whole but special interest lobbying is destroying politics

Unfortunately citizens united is justified because of the Telecommunications Act. I do t think we can repeal it without breaking up the power of single individuals to manipulate dialogue through the media.

a reply to: luthier

I''ll grant you that Romney would be the political centrist (not wanting to drift too far to the right or left), although for his presidential run, he (needed to) cast himself too far to the right to garner votes. However, if Johnson and Weld (now) are Libertarian Party candidates, then, no, they are not political centrists. Libertarianism is far right wing. When Johnson was NM gov, he was Republican.

a reply to: desert

That is not accurate at all. Libertarians are not far right wing.

In fact they cross over the social justice realm with liberals quite often.

Rush Limbaugh and Gary Johnson have less in common then he does with some liberals.

Someone like Rand Paul is the only person bringing up aspects of injustice to the poor and blacks to the national stage with the war on drugs, prisons , nonviolent felons being able to vote and things like this. It's not a cut and dry situation.

Johnson has always been a libertarian he ran as a Republican so did Ron Paul for most of his career. Weld as well.

Centrism is being able to work with both sides and listen to the voters now a days. He may have person classical liberal views that mirror Locke or Jefferson but he certainly isnt part of the far right which encompasses the religious right.