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

originally posted by: Phage

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.

How is he less electable than Trump or Clinton?

He may not be my perfect idea of a dream candidate, but he's at least not the nightmare I seen in a Trump or Clinton.

a reply to: luthier

If we move out of a linear left-right, it is possible to argue for a lib left. The Political Compass. However,

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

Libertarian economics is definitely on the far right. The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate Agenda . And, no, I would not want to live in a Libertarian economy: My libertarian vacation nightmare: How Ayn Rand, Ron Paul & their groupies were all debunked

The 7 Strangest Libertarian Ideas

a reply to: desert

I am not an idealist. I understand the need for compromise and frequently argue against mises disregard for money power.

Just saying a libertarian as the commander and chief, either a governor or president is a good place to have that idealism. They aren't using exec orders for everything, respect the rules of law, and understand that the branches of power have meaning.

So in other words they have to listen to Congress, the public, and the state legislators.

Though a few years of cleaning house may be good for a start over if there was a complete libertarian revolution.

a reply to: luthier

luthier, I respect your thinking. I will just say this in re to a Libertarian Revolution. I'm an old fart, and any revolution is now in the hands of those younger. A revolution has to start from the ground up, which is what Bernie Sanders is telling young people to do: get involved in politics and either run for (local) offices yourself or work to elect those running.

If you want a Libertarian Revolution, you will have to start at the bottom. BUT, be honest about what the totality of Libertarianism means. Besides reading economic theory, you will need to tell people exactly what it would mean to them. Put pot smoking freedom in the larger context of where it comes from and what else would one be free of. And misinterpreting statements on race relations to mean a desire to do away with supremacy can lead to revival of just the opposite.

Best of luck!

a reply to: desert

Thank you. And like wise.

But you are mistaking me a little. I don't think any idealism works. Including Bernie Sanders who I respect greatly as a statesman representing the views of his constituates.


However within the regards of governments obligations the total sum of socialist views do not mesh well with the American system of justice and political morality on a federal level. It's fine for communities and states but our forefathers knew not to give that power to the federal government. Why because the next Dick Cheney will have far too much power to make decisions. Even if he pretends to be a socialist. Just like scrutinizing mises I also must scrutinize the political ideology.

I think judges, Govenors, and presidents should have strong libertarian ideals.

Reps and senators should reflect the views of the local districts they represent and report and debate.

Thats just me. I am fine adapting to what ever reality comes unless it's fascism or totalitarianism.

If you are honest , which I think you are, you have to understand the danger of a federal government that can decide for the people.

The thing about classical liberalism is it let's to acknowledge corruption will happen. I think on some level socialism assumes it won't (on a federal level )

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
"Gary Johnson is better than Hillary or Trump" That is not saying much. Any number of inanimate objects would do a better job than Trump or Clinton.

It's actually saying a lot when we are talking about the position of president of the United States.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
solution: Limit government to bare minimum and ban lobbying.

So when a vote comes up on Net Neutrality, you would like your government official to vote with the ideology of minimum government rather than research the issue? When school curriculum come up you would like the congressman to do what he feels is best or what the polls say rather than consult with experts in education?

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?

The public who votes them into power. I think the government is going to defend me, when it's running properly, because it has no ability to do otherwise. Transparency and a strong public voice keep people honest.

I am sorry you feel that way

It's not that I feel that way, it's that it's a fact. One cannot be an expert in everything, therefore one cannot make an informed vote on a broad platform because there are aspects to it that you simply will not have the necessary education to comprehend.

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.

When has a tyrant run our government? It's set up to keep them out, and to limit their influence when they do get in. That said, you need an educated population if you want to be a world power these days if you don't have one you won't be able to build and maintain the necessary infrastructure, military, and economy to keep up with the rest of the world. That's why governments around the world invest in education, it's in their interest for the general public to be smarter.

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

It's not that they're the only ones allowed to have an opinion, it's that you don't want to entrust the decisions to people who know nothing of the subject. Do you want an auto mechanic to be making decisions on how to perform surgery? A surgeon to be your buildings HVAC person? An engineer to be your diplomat? A diplomat to build your airplanes?

We have historical examples of what happens when you ignore the opinion of those skilled in a discipline. The Russians tried it and ended up with mass famine once they realized they ignored the farmers and screwed up their harvests. Then they regressed to the point they couldn't tell time because the people who were knitting clothes had to admit they had no idea how to build clocks.

originally posted by: luthierIndustry can advise and have meetings with co guess as a whole

You just described lobbying. What do you think they do? They're all special interests because they focus on one sector rather than being of interest to the general public.

I fully understand not liking special interests but the reason for that isn't because they're inherently bad, it's because corporations have unchecked power to push their agendas while the general public has no such power to push back. Sometimes you get a lobbying group that is on the publics side instead of a corporations but they are severely outspent.

Using public money to actually fund groups that push ideas in the interest of the public would run corporate lobbyists out of DC, they simply don't have the money to keep up. It all comes down to money power, not because it's speech but because money is the lifeblood of politics. It has been that way for 6000 years and it's not changing any time soon.

a reply to: Aazadan

Not exactly.

There is a difference between having meetings with congress when they call in industry to deal with social, economic, environmental, or other issues compared to petitioning reps, senators, congressman through donations.

Saying that money power is inevitable and it can't be controlled is essentially just allowing the formation of an oligarchy. It may not be able to be stopped but certainly senators spending 30 hours a week at call senators petitioning lobbyist for money is not optimal for democracy.

Having followed this presidential campaign with some interest here is what I take on it in a nutshell.

On the Republican side, you have Trump. A businessman, slightly successful, who inherited his money from his family, and got into developing land, and building all sorts of things. He really has never failed, never hit rock bottom, and has bullied his way in the board rooms, using political connections where he can to win court cases, even when he is in the wrong, going after the victims of his actions, without impunity. He has a very bad past for that, but it has made him all the more successful, building and using his fathers reputation to get where he is today. The man skirts the laws as much as he can, often going as close to breaking them and then backing down. It is his political connections that has benefited him the most in his career. Does the man lie, absolutely, does he cheat, every chance he gets, yet it has gotten him far in his life. During this campaign, he has managed to irritate and insult a good portion of the electorate with his words, showing how vulgar the man can be. To all appearances, he shows that he is a danger and ultimately, makes far too many people and countries real nervous, and at times shows a 2 faced nature, in his attempt to secure the electorate. Saying one thing, yet going against and saying something totally different.

On the Democratic side, there is Clinton. Here is a woman, who has been in the seat of power, for a long time, walking through the halls of power, and yes she does have some skeletons in the closet. Many in congress on the republican side, do not like her and are going after her in a political witch hunt, to try to damage her credibility to the point of character assassination. They look at her record, while ignoring those administration before she was in any position to do anything of real significance. Is there things in her past that should make us question, yes, but is it relevant to the future of the country, maybe, but the way things are going, highly unlikely.

And out of the blue comes a third party candidates that no one really knows, but ultimately it is an uphill battle, as the nominee for this party, the only one that is registered in all 50 states, to convince the majority of the population, in a majority of the states, that they are the better person to win the election, and to get the votes. And to try to gather voters from both the Republicans and the Democrats at the same time. Now getting them from the Republicans, that would be simple, as they can use Trump against himself, by being inclusive and not insulting or alienating voters across the country, by supporting key issues, and at the same time avoiding some hot button topics. But make no mistake, that this third part, is going to be either the off shoot or the successor to the republican party, as many of the prime republican backers and donors are looking to these candidates as being a viable alternative to Trump, and thus leaving only to having to deal with Clinton. And to do that that candidate will need to appeal heavily to the minority voters, addressing their concerns and trying to show that they have a better policy than Clinton does.



If anything, it is going to be a very interesting political campaign to watch and usually by August/September, most know who they are going to vote for, by October at the latest the polls is what will really show closer to the will of the people.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Excellent summation!


a reply to: Aazadan

You have been pointing out the gap nowadays between theory and practice.

Yet our libertarianism is not an ideology in the old sense. It is a dogma. The distinction between ideology and dogma is worth bearing in mind. Ideology tries to master the historical forces shaping society by first understanding them. The grand ideologies of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries did just that, and much too well; since they were intellectually “totalizing,” they countenanced political totalitarianism. Our libertarianism operates differently: it is supremely dogmatic, and like every dogma it sanctions ignorance about the world, and therefore blinds adherents to its effects in that world. It begins with basic liberal principles—the sanctity of the individual, the priority of freedom, distrust of public authority, tolerance—and advances no further. It has no taste for reality, no curiosity about how we got here or where we are going. There is no libertarian sociology (an oxymoron) or psychology or philosophy of history. Nor, strictly speaking, is there a libertarian political theory, since it has no interest in institutions and has nothing to say about the necessary, and productive, tension between individual and collective purposes. It is not liberal in a sense that Montesquieu, the American Framers, Tocqueville, or Mill would have recognized. They would have seen it as a creed little different from Luther’s sola fide: give individuals maximum freedom in every aspect of their lives and all will be well. And if not, then pereat mundus.

Libertarianism’s dogmatic simplicity explains why people who otherwise share little can subscribe to it: small-government fundamentalists on the American right, anarchists on the European and Latin American left, democratization prophets, civil liberties absolutists, human rights crusaders, neoliberal growth evangelists, rogue hackers, gun fanatics, porn manufacturers, and Chicago School economists the world over. The dogma that unites them is implicit and does not require explication; it is a mentality, a mood, a presumption—what used to be called, non-pejoratively, a prejudice. Maintaining an ideology requires work because political developments always threaten its plausibility. Theories must be tweaked, revisions must be revised. Since ideology makes a claim about the way the world actually works, it invites and resists refutation. A dogma, by contrast, does not. That is why our libertarian age is an illegible age.

source

a reply to: desert

That would be true if both these Govenors who have always been libertarian republicans were not capable of compromising and legislating with their fellow congressman. In practice both these men were extremely effective Govenors who were able to get both sides to pass laws.

Now compare that with the dogma of socialism.

a reply to: luthier



Gary Johnson on Fusion TV.

His polling is doing pretty well. Trump should promote GJ seeing how he's taking votes away from her more than Trump.



Gary Johnson on CNN again. He needs to spam this message of libertarianism as much as possible on national TV.