[QUOTE]Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party's 2012 presidential candidate, announced Wednesday that he's joining the already crowded 2016 White House field.
The former New Mexico governor cast himself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal dismayed by the size of government. "Government is too big. It's unwieldy," he said during an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox Business. "It's out of control. We need to get control."[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/06/gary-johnson-announces-presidential-bid/78356712/[/url]
Too Late for you... Gary Johnson.
Edit: Why too late is the GOP field is already too saturated... he doesn't stand a chance
[url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140423044742/http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/23qbtl/ask_gov_gary_johnson/cgzkfu0?context=1]"So poor you can't afford the mental healthcare you need? Bootstrap that shit!" ~ Gary Johnson[/url]
Johnson's brand of libertarianism can't handle the needs of his citizens.
Is anyone actually surprised?
Wait, is he aiming for the Republican nomination or the Libertarian nomination?
[QUOTE=gman003-main;49473471]Wait, is he aiming for the Republican nomination or the Libertarian nomination?[/QUOTE]
It's in the OP. You don't have an excuse
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;49473481]It's in the OP. You don't have an excuse[/QUOTE]
No, it isn't. It says he was the 2012 Libertarian candidate, and that he's joining the "already crowded 2016 White House field", which could refer either to the general field, or to a specific party's nomination process.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;49473502]No, it isn't. It says he was the 2012 Libertarian candidate, and that he's joining the "already crowded 2016 White House field", which could refer either to the general field, or to a specific party's nomination process.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. The article makes it explicit, though. He's running as a Libertarian.
I voted for him in 2012 but over the past few years I've come to find the Libertarian ideology to be far too rigid. Their brand of rugged individualism is a very stoic and admirable way to live, but they forget that people are social creatures and we do need some unifying progressive policies. They aren't wrong when they talk about certain people who leech off of public services, but that is more due to the culture surrounding it. As of now I'm probably going to be staying home on Election Day.
[QUOTE=ahmedsalaam69;49473583]I voted for him in 2012 but over the past few years I've come to find the Libertarian ideology to be far too rigid. Their brand of rugged individualism is a very stoic and admirable way to live, but they forget that people are social creatures and we do need some unifying progressive policies. They aren't wrong when they talk about certain people who leech off of public services, but that is more due to the culture surrounding it. As of now I'm probably going to be staying home on Election Day.[/QUOTE]
True if you're talking about the Libertarian party specifically, not really true of libertarianism in general. You can be a libertarian socialist, for instance.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;49473682]True if you're talking about the Libertarian party specifically, not really true of libertarianism in general. You can be a libertarian socialist, for instance.[/QUOTE]
I think both of us know which "libertarianism" I am referring to; back in the day they would have been referred to as Liberal.
If you want to be a successful libertarian you pretty much have to do what rand paul and others do and hijack the republican party, so he'll probably fail
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;49473441][url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140423044742/http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/23qbtl/ask_gov_gary_johnson/cgzkfu0?context=1]"So poor you can't afford the mental healthcare you need? Bootstrap that shit!" ~ Gary Johnson[/url]
Johnson's brand of libertarianism can't handle the needs of his citizens.[/QUOTE]
Libertarianism in general can't handle the needs of citizens. It's almost like these people don't seem to understand that modern society does not operate as some kind of semi-anarchistic free-for-all and that human beings are social creatures by nature who must work together towards a common goal and take care of each other in order to get things done and create a peaceful, enjoyable life; the more people you have working together, the greater prosperity there will be. We don't need to dissolve the government, we don't need to eliminate taxes, we don't need to remove regulations on things like the market and the environment (etc.), we don't need to break down into communes/municipalities like Libertarian Socialists believe... this isn't how we progress as a society. We've gotten to where we are today through unity, not this kind of clusterfucked divisonism.
The running joke is that "you could ask ten Libertarians what Libertarianism is and would get ten different answers", and it's true. It's just another utopian ideology out of many that have existed throughout history, and its typical embodiment (right-wing, laissez-faire, anti-government, etc.) appeals to the myth of, [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1500364&p=49473583&viewfull=1#post49473583]as Ahmed put it[/url], "rugged, stoic individualism" that some people aspire to exude like children who are obsessed with Spaghetti Western cowboys.
While I agree with you, one could say that about Socialism too, you could get ten different answers from ten different Socialists. Look at the differences between Corbyn and Sanders.
I can't tell which is scariest:
Donald Trump and his racist, 'Murica loving, evangelical voterbase
The status quo republicans who have spent the last 30 years since reagan selling the American people out to the highest bidders
Or the crazy pants-on-head libertarians like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Gary Johnson who think our best solution is to take out all the stops preventing big businesses from paying people 12c a day and gobbling up the middle class because of AuStRiAn EcOnOmIcS
[QUOTE=person11;49474292]While I agree with you, one could say that about Socialism too, you could get ten different answers from ten different Socialists. Look at the differences between Corbyn and Sanders.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you would. Most everyone who is a Socialist agrees on what social ownership means and what control over the means of production is about. It's a well-defined ideology that has a number of well-defined subideologies inside it. Libertarianism on the other hand is not well-defined in the first place and does not have an extensive list of well-defined subideologies, because it's literally about nothing except "liberty" and giving people a ton of personal autonomy. Some try to narrow what this means down more than others do (i.e. Libertarian Socialists), but the fact is it's a gigantic umbrella term, and that's because there's a lack of cohesion. An ideology about "liberty and freedom" is not a cohesive ideology at all, and that's exactly why it has never worked before and will never work in the modern world.
Also, what differences are there between Sanders and Corbyn exactly? The only ones I can see is that Corbyn is more open about having nationalistic attitudes towards Ireland while Sanders is not so open here in the United States. Otherwise, both men are opposed to austerity, think university tuition fees are absurd and need to be abolished or greatly reduced, support renewable energy projects, opposed the Iraq War, both proclaim themselves to be Democratic Socialists... they've got a lot in common as far as I can tell, so whatever differences exist between them must be minor. On the other hand with Libertarians, look at the differences between [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson]Johnson[/url] here and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rand_Paul]Rand Paul[/url]: Johnson supports abortion and Paul opposes it, Paul opposes government protections for LGBT individuals and Johnson supports the government protecting them and their rights, they've got different foreign policy views (like on Iraq, where Johnson flipflopped), Johnson is much more detailed on his views about government structuring than Paul is, etc.
There's just no cohesion. It's individualistic degeneration, and it's the last thing the United States needs right now. Again, we need ideologies that focus on bringing us together and building up the country together-- not ones that encourage us to break apart and be whatever we want and to worry about ourselves more than anything else. We've been a successful country precisely because of our ability to work together towards common goals. It's fine for people to have their own beliefs about religion and politics and be individuals when they aren't trying to make decisions that affect everybody else, but there are some things that do affect us all (like what kind of economy we want to have, what kinds of regulations we want in place where our economy and environment and so on are concerned, rights and freedoms that need to be guaranteed to us by the federal government and not left up for states to decide, what will be taught to our children in schools, etc.) which we absolutely must have unity on. I get that the United States is incredibly dysfunctional today, but it seems to me that this kind of "look out for yourself and think about yourself over the collective" mentality is just going to make things into an even more dysfunctional rat race than what they already are.
If Hilary is nominated he's definitely my second choice. I refuse to vote for Hildog, even faced against Trump.
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49474433]I can't tell which is scariest:
Donald Trump and his racist, 'Murica loving, evangelical voterbase
The status quo republicans who have spent the last 30 years since reagan selling the American people out to the highest bidders
Or the crazy pants-on-head libertarians like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Gary Johnson who think our best solution is to take out all the stops preventing big businesses from paying people 12c a day and gobbling up the middle class because of AuStRiAn EcOnOmIcS[/QUOTE]
You'd have to be pretty fucking ignorant to think Gary is anywhere near as bad as Trump. His fiscal policies may be a little fucked, but at least he wants people to be free. Look at his social views and tell me with a straight face that he is as bad as Trump.
Libertarianism is great
if you're an immortal android
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megadave;49475333]If Hilary is nominated he's definitely my second choice. I refuse to vote for Hildog, even faced against Trump.
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
You'd have to be pretty fucking ignorant to think Gary is anywhere near as bad as Trump. His fiscal policies may be a little fucked, but at least he wants people to be free. Look at his social views and tell me with a straight face that he is as bad as Trump.[/QUOTE]
Having had to live with the consequences of the man's policies, he is as bad as Trump.
[QUOTE=27X;49475366]Libertarianism is great
if you're an immortal android[/QUOTE]
Well if we know what humanity is to eventually become, libertarianism is the way of the future. We might not be ready for full libertarianism yet, but once we acchieve transcendence then it would be perfect. That is if you aren't talking out of your ass.
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
Yeah what the fuck ever, if I'm a dumbass for liking Gary then let me be the biggest dumbass who ever lived. and no, he is not as bad as trump, no matter how far up your ass your head is stuck. I'm sorry for putting it bluntly, but really I don't see how you can say that with what Gary wants.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson#Social_policy[/url]
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Govna;49474277]Libertarianism in general can't handle the needs of citizens. It's almost like these people don't seem to understand that modern society does not operate as some kind of semi-anarchistic free-for-all and that human beings are social creatures by nature who must work together towards a common goal and take care of each other in order to get things done and create a peaceful, enjoyable life; the more people you have working together, the greater prosperity there will be. We don't need to dissolve the government, we don't need to eliminate taxes, we don't need to remove regulations on things like the market and the environment (etc.), we don't need to break down into communes/municipalities like Libertarian Socialists believe... this isn't how we progress as a society. We've gotten to where we are today through unity, not this kind of clusterfucked divisonism.
The running joke is that "you could ask ten Libertarians what Libertarianism is and would get ten different answers", and it's true. It's just another utopian ideology out of many that have existed throughout history, and its typical embodiment (right-wing, laissez-faire, anti-government, etc.) appeals to the myth of, [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1500364&p=49473583&viewfull=1#post49473583]as Ahmed put it[/url], "rugged, stoic individualism" that some people aspire to exude like children who are obsessed with Spaghetti Western cowboys.[/QUOTE]
So basically, no more idealistic than socialism.
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
Honestly, if he can put up with some of Sander's policies, he'd be excellent as a Vice President to him, or somewhere in his administration. I think they could both even eachother out on the loopy stuff.
Was worried there would literally be [I]no one[/I] for me to vote for this coming election, now I'm not.
[QUOTE=Megadave;49475374]So basically, no more idealistic than socialism.
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
Honestly, if he can put up with some of Sander's policies, he'd be excellent as a Vice President to him, or somewhere in his administration. I think they could both even eachother out on the loopy stuff.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand how Socialism works, nor the fact that it's actually been successfully implemented in a number of countries around the world (Nordic Social Democracy in the Scandinavian countries, the Rhenish Model in Germany, Ireland which has one of the best systems of generally providing welfare in the world, etc.). Socialism is much more practical and has been much more successful in its ideological existence than Libertarianism is at present, or ever has been at any point in the past for that matter. For reference, the very fact that it's impossible to cite a Libertarian country because of the issue that there never has been one in the first place (with the exception of maybe Somalia during its civil war, when there basically was no functioning government-- certainly not a "big government"-- and things devolved into a rape and murder-filled "scavange-or-starve" free-for-all; if this wasn't an example of Libertarianism in action, then it was an example of Anarchism that is closely related). And that's because countries need strong central governments that can enforce security and maintain stability in order to stimulate both social and economic development.
Why the hell would anyone want this man to be Vice President of the United States? He's no Rand Paul, but he's still a massive fucktard on plenty of fundamental issues in this country who thinks that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson#Stem_cell_research]stem cell research shouldn't be federally supported[/url], [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson#Education]thinks that the Department of Education should be abolished and the student loans bubble-- which exceeds $1 trillion-- can magically be fixed by handing the problem over to the free market[/url], [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson#Internet_issues]doesn't want the FCC to even exist to prevent stuff like, you know, speed throttling and paid prioritization by ISPs[/url], [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson#Employment]doesn't believe the government can do anything to help create jobs[/url] (hint: [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/opinion/the-myth-of-job-creation.html]it can[/url], and [url=http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/r41017_01142010.pdf]it has done so before in our nation's history[/url])... this is the last human being we need going anywhere near the White House. He shouldn't even be in Congress right now, much less running for president. His "solutions" boil down to the same tired free market snake oil tonics that right-wing politicians have been trying to sell here for decades now, just with a "we don't need no central government" twist that, again, completely ignores how the real world actually works in favor of utopianistic idealism that sounds pleasant and is emotionally appealing but has never worked in reality and will never work so long as we're living in an advanced civilization that requires more than a "liberty and freedom" tagline in order to be successfully governed.
[QUOTE=Megadave;49475374]
Yeah what the fuck ever, if I'm a dumbass for liking Gary then let me be the biggest dumbass who ever lived. and no, he is not as bad as trump, no matter how far up your ass your head is stuck. I'm sorry for putting it bluntly, but really I don't see how you can say that with what Gary wants.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson#Social_policy[/url]
[/QUOTE]
Nah, a lot of his policies still suck.
[quote]"He views public-sector unions that contribute to political campaigns as "dangerous.""[/quote]
Probably because they wouldn't be sending any money his way. Jokes aside...
[quote]"On the state level, Johnson believes in "school choice." As governor of New Mexico, he sought to implement a school voucher system, which he believes would transform public education into a more "effective" system."[/quote]
So what happens under this system? The rich families send their kids to the "good" public schools, because they can afford to drive them outside the bussing range, while the poor kids who can't afford to go to a better school end up at worse schools.
The poor schools will get worse due to a continued lack of funding, and with their poorer educations, the students will have less chances at upwards mobility. So they won't get to get in on that sweet American dream Johnson likes to spout off about[/li]
[quote]"On the federal level, Johnson believes the Department of Education should be abolished because federal control of state education funding negatively impacts the states: he claims that 11 cents out of every dollar states spent on education comes from the Department of Education, but accepting the money comes with 16 cents of "strings attached." Johnson believes that block-granting education funds to the states without strings, thereby returning all control of education to the states, is the best choice, because it would create "50 laboratories of innovation" from which best practices would emerge. He believes that the No Child Left Behind Act and other "federal mandates" create a "terrible" system of education, and believes they should be repealed. He says that a "homogenous" national education system does not work."[/quote]
Dude you live in a country where states like Tenessee have passed laws protecting the rights of teachers to deny the current scientific consensus on evolution and global warming in science class. If anything the States probably need more homogeneity. While I do disagree with the way funding is handled under NCLB, it's not like Gary Johnson's policy of "let the rich go to the good schools and fuck the poor" would be any better for the disenfranchised. Education is an investment in the future of the citizenry, not some opportunity for a country-wide social experiment.
[quote]"He opposes Internet neutrality, because he believes it impedes business competition."[/quote]
For a guy who's all about the "free market" he's pretty open on letting companies collude and corrupt it.
Also fairtax is a stupid system that, no matter how you spin it, means that the richest in the country will have a dramatically lower tax burden, while the middle and lower-middle classes (who have to spend more of their income than the rich) get shafted. The exemptions for those below the poverty line aren't gonna mean shit for the dwindling middle class. But he plans on making it so the poor don't get any gov't assistance for education or healthcare, so at least the budget will be fine!
A lot of his stances do make some sense, but just as many don't.
libertarians are a joke, i thought i was one once then i actually looked up what they stand for, when rand paul says he wants a government so small he can't see it, he means one that doesn't do shit, can't do shit, and lets people suffer and die in the name of personal freedoms
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
also when your ideology comes literally from fiction, maybe you should not base real politics on it.
i'm looking at you (Ayn) Rand Paul
[QUOTE=Sableye;49476652]libertarians are a joke, i thought i was one once then i actually looked up what they stand for, when rand paul says he wants a government so small he can't see it, he means one that doesn't do shit, can't do shit, and lets people suffer and die in the name of personal freedoms[/QUOTE]
At least Paulites aren't Palinites.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49476657]At least Paulites aren't Palinites.[/QUOTE]
they're 1 step up from palin, and on the same level as bachman, not really impressive
[QUOTE=Sableye;49476673]they're 1 step up from palin, and on the same level as bachman, not really impressive[/QUOTE]
Isolationism is better than a genocidal crusade and theocratic rule is worse than local governments deciding everything.
[QUOTE=Sableye;49476652]when rand paul says he wants a government so small he can't see it, he means one that doesn't do shit, can't do shit, and [b]lets people suffer and die[/b] in the name of personal freedoms[/QUOTE]
Dude are you serious?
Government isn't oxygen or a super hero.
[QUOTE=Govna;49475819]I don't think you understand how Socialism works, nor the fact that it's actually been successfully implemented in a number of countries around the world (Nordic Social Democracy in the Scandinavian countries, the Rhenish Model in Germany, Ireland which has one of the best systems of generally providing welfare in the world, etc.). Socialism is much more practical and has been much more successful in its ideological existence than Libertarianism is at present, or ever has been at any point in the past for that matter. For reference, the very fact that it's impossible to cite a Libertarian country because of the issue that there never has been one in the first place (with the exception of maybe Somalia during its civil war, when there basically was no functioning government-- certainly not a "big government"-- and things devolved into a rape and murder-filled "scavange-or-starve" free-for-all; if this wasn't an example of Libertarianism in action, then it was an example of Anarchism that is closely related). And that's because countries need strong central governments that can enforce security and maintain stability in order to stimulate both social and economic development.[/QUOTE]
Capitalism with a functional welfare state is still capitalism, and not socialism, although it's easy to get confused on the matter when social democracy was influenced and promoted by many socialists. Similarly, lacking a government doesn't automatically make for an example of anarchism.
In general, the word "libertarian" in the U.S. has the precise opposite meaning of what libertarian has meant in the rest of the world for the last century and a half or so. The perversion of these terms makes having any kind of legitimate discussion about libertarianism a tiring affair.
[QUOTE=Sableye;49476652]libertarians are a joke, i thought i was one once then i actually looked up what they stand for, when rand paul says he wants a government so small he can't see it, he means one that doesn't do shit, can't do shit, and lets people suffer and die in the name of personal freedoms
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
also when your ideology comes literally from fiction, maybe you should not base real politics on it.
i'm looking at you (Ayn) Rand Paul[/QUOTE]
I still identify as a libertarian and I think Rand Paul is a joke, I liked his father but I never cared for him at all.
[QUOTE=Sableye;49476652]
also when your ideology comes literally from fiction, maybe you should not base real politics on it.
[/QUOTE]
Where's the funny button when you need it :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
