GARY JOHNSON FOR PRESIDENT

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

mikepegg44 said:

rgambs said:

What's hilarious about libertarians is the notion that private enterprise operating in the free market is better at handling finances! The history of free market capitalism in the US is a story of periodic collapse and epic failures that make the government look pretty good.
There will always be mistakes, foolishness, and waste, but that's why we have the opportunity to elect officials from the bottom up. Unfortunately, we don't, we elect from the top down.

Rgambs,


What is hilarious is the idea that there has ever been a free market. Also if a business fails it does not do so with money they have taken from me if I didn't willingly give it to them. Government failure is failure with other people's money that may or may not have wanted to give it or agreed with where their money went.
Target only gets my money when I willingly give it so if they are irresponsible or fiscally risky I don't give a shit...when a government body does it with money they took without asking I have a bigger concern and it is much more personal.

Most libertarians won't concede this point, but many forms of governing work. As a libertarian myself I believe that the government is there to protect people and property. people often disagree on what that means. I can't fault someone for thinking protecting people means having social security or a SNAP food program while others think it means preemptively striking a country with bombs because they are after nuclear energy. Who is to say who is right? Or are they all right? We all want the same thing really...a prosperous world with opportunity for all who want it.
I believe that libertarian voices are equally important in a discussion as any other and need to be heard. Libertarians biggest problem is that they come across as condescending and dismissive to ideas where compromise would be a much more pragmatic approach. fight for legalization sure, but we must realize that settling for decriminalization will serve many of the same purposes.
I am far more worried about what the US government can do to the world in its current state of military intervention and crony capitalism than I am about the damage a free market can do to the world.

No war on drugs, no war on terror, ending a state system that allows for institutional discrimination of any kind (marriage equality shouldn't have to be fought for, there shouldn't be the need to have a state issued license to marry to begin with)...I could go on, but i think you get the point...all of those things sound great to me and I will gladly take the bad that comes with the philosophy that brings me those things
To paraphrase Penn Gillette i usually start with the question " can this problem be solved with less government?" Often I believe the answer is yes, but sometimes the answer is no and libertarians all too often try to force the answer of yes to every single question. That is a huge problem.

Gary Johnson isn't perfect, but he reflects a change in philosophy that needs to be heard on a national scale in direct contrast to the other party platforms in a televised and moderated debate.

I agree, especially on the idea of getting the Feds out and letting state governments that better represent the state's culture and ideals do their governing. Marriage as well, why is who can or cannot marry even a government, state or federal, issue at all? This country was not founded on the principal of "government approved" Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness. We are not here to make the government stronger, but instead the government is in place to make the people stronger. Somehow people have gotten so delusional that they think "the government" or a bunch of power hungry politicians are going to care for them more than they care for themselves. That delusion has dissolved the idea of personal responsibility for their Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness...all of which are individually defined goals. Life has not and will never be "fair", there will always be good people suffering and bad people profiting and vise versa. I believe that people will help the suffering if they see it as a personal responsibility instead of a government mandate...it's in our nature to rebel.

This just comes off as naive to me. People will help the suffering if it isnt a government mandate?
For real?
I don't see anything in this country's (or the world's) history that evidences there is a large enough will to alleviate suffering that the government can get out of that business.

Government shouldn't tell people they can't get married, but there are real, practical consequences of marriage that need to be thought about. If we just blow up marriage in general, we need to have a plan in place to deal with those consequences.

Organizations such as the Christian Relief Fund are completely based on people giving money out of their own pockets to help those in need. They are a non-government based organization that has fed and housed thousands of not millions of people and are totally charity. They are one of a countless organizations that are not government based that go lengths in helping mass amounts of people in the world thrive. They teach people in third world countries how to be self sufficient. The government teaches those that they "help" to be dependent.
The government wasted trillions of dollars, probably enough to give the whole world "champagne breakfasts" on things like the war on drugs. Tell me again how people cannot manage their personal finances better than a government "entity"?
I guess that the difference between you and I are that I still believe that there are good people out there willing to help each other. I am definitely one of those...

Private charities will be the first to tell you that they would be completely buried to death in demand if their parallel government program didn't exist. It's a right wing myth that they provide services more efficiently than the government programs.

Some can manage their finances, and some can't. The average household credit card debt is about $10k. So that tells us something.

mickeyrat said:

recent video of Johnson calling Trump a pussy!!!! Says he will state to his face in a debate.

F Me In The Brain said:

I think that term is fine. But hey, I am a Republican voting Libertarian.

mickeyrat said:

yes. back on topic.

so of the johnson platform thats been reported, where does it veer from libertarian ideals?

I have not researched as thoroughly as I could have so am asking for your take.

mickeyrat said:

Very interesting. Very interesting indeed.

I have seen more posts than I can count , suggesting there are ONLY two choices this election cycle.
When in fact there is an alternative.

One that is on the ballot in all 50 states , and I assume in the territories as well.

ANNNNND YET , this was found on the third page.


Do tell, why there isnt more discussion here on this ticket? If the other two are so distasteful to many, it seems logical to me that at a minimum this ticket would get more consideration than has been shown here.


Edit to correct a typo.

unsung said:

So, what about Libertarianism don't you like?

Economics and governance?

You don't like sound money and being left alone? Please explain. I'm asking in a non-volatile way, I really want to know. It seems common sense to me.