Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson to Ditch GOP for the Libertarian Party

|

Republican pariah and former two-term governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson will declare his intention to run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket next week, POLITICO reports

The former two-term New Mexico governor, whose campaign for the GOP nomination never caught fire, will make the announcement at a press conference in Santa Fe on Dec. 28. Johnson state directors will be informed of his plans on a campaign conference call Tuesday night, a Johnson campaign source told POLITICO.

The move has been expected for weeks—Johnson had run a New Hampshire-centric effort that never got him past a blip in the polls. He appeared at only two nationally televised debates, and only one in which other major candidates took part.

Johnson expressed deep disillusionment with the process as his libertarian message failed to catch fire and he received almost no attention for his bid. He soon began flirting with the Libertarians when it became clear that he was gaining no traction in GOP primaries.

Johnson has announced the Dec. 28 event on his Facebook page. Campaign spokesman Joe Hunter said only that it would be "a significant announcement."

Calling news of the switch "the worst kept secret," Libertarian Party Chairman Mark Hinkle said the Santa Fe event will include a press conference at which Johnson will switch his voter registration to Libertarian.

Advertisement

NEXT: How People Think We Should Pay for Roads, Transit, High-Speed Rail and Other Infrastructure

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. looks like a 3rd party vote is in my future.

    1. He’s got my vote if Paul doesn’t get the Republican nomination.

      In other words, he’s got my vote.

      1. Same here.

      2. you may be voting for a Paul/Johnson ticket through Americans Elect.

  2. Great, although I hope he goes for the Reform and Constitution Party nominations as well.

    Now a two-prong attack is possible, with Paul seeking the GOP nomination with Johnson’s 1-2% added on – enough to make a difference in close races. And Johnson will be on the ballot in the general, can get Paul’s endorsement and/or work out a shared ticket if Paul loses.

    1. And Han Solo would totally beat Aragorn in a fight.

      1. Haha. +1

      2. lmao

        1. To get the Constitution Party nomination, he would have to become prolife. He might be able to get the Reform nomination, since it seems they’re willing to give it to anyone, but I’m not sure.

          1. The Constitution Party? Holy fuck….

          2. Actually, you’re probably right. I wonder if that would be enough to make a difference in Ron Paul’s endorsement, assuming he doesn’t win and doesn’t want to run as third party.

      3. Uhh dude…Aragon is like 400 years old. Of course Han would beat him.

      4. Only if he has a blaster and shoots first. Imagine what Aragorn could do with a light saber….

    2. The Constitution Party? You mean the Theocrat Party? No way.

      1. Out in California Constitution Party candidates run under the American Independent Party. Which George Wallace started so he could run on the platform of segregation. That the Constitution Party would ally with the AIP shows their true colors. Racists.

  3. Ummm, I would think that anyone Johnson siphons off from the R vote would be from Paul’s camp.

    Got a flurry of lobbying from Johnson’s people the last few days, what with being the state LP chair and a probable delegate at the LP convention.

    1. What state are you the chair?

  4. Still won’t mean much. Honestly our best bet at advancing a libertarian agenda, save a complete party meltdown, which was the only other time a third party was vaulted to major party status, is to take over one of the other parties from within.

    1. Or form a swing bloc like soccer moms which the parties fight over every election, which is probably an easier task than a full blown party takeover, though it wouldn’t be all that easy. It’s especially tough with so many libertarians refusing to vote for anyone who disagrees with them on more than 1% of the issues.

    2. It doesn’t mean much. But it will be nice to have an LP candidate who is not fucking nuts or Bob Barr since that it generally the only person I can bear to vote for in a general election.

  5. At least I’ll be able to vote in this presidential election.

  6. Too bad he’s not a libertarian

    1. I voted for Chuck Baldwin in 2008.

      Baldwin 08 — We gotta get those broads out of combat

    2. Jesus shut the hell up already.

    3. At least he’s not Barr.

      1. That should be his campaign slogan!

    4. Really? Not a libertarian? Drink!!!!

      He’s an 80 percenter, good enough for moi.

    5. Well, it’s a good thing Milton Friedman always agreed with Ayn Rand who always agreed with Friedrich Hayek who always agreed Thomas Sowell who always agreed with Albert Jay Nock…

      The very nature of our silly “libertarian” label is that it hardly encompasses one, lean and fully definable worldview. In an overall sense, Johnson is as libertarian as a great many who define themselves as such.

      He’s not an academic like Paul, and can’t quote the Austrians chapter and verse. This is true. He lacks Paul’s cranky charisma (although he IS slightly less marble-mouthed when speaking publicly).

      But the guy is fora foreign policy which is CONSIDERABLY less interventionist than the one we’ve got, a tax code which is considerably less insane than the one we’ve got, he’s for a drug policy infinitely more sane than the one we’ve got, and he’s for an immigration policy both more sane than the one we’ve got AND the one Ron Paul supports.

      In addition, he’s pro choice, he’s pro-gay marriage, he served 8 years in executive office successfully, he’s not 76 years old, he has no past ties to fringey “git off my land,” racist types, and he seems like a really good guy.

      And he climbed Everest.

      He ain’t perfect, but he’s a shitload better than your beloved Ron Paul. AND given half a chance – which an LP nomination might give him – he might actually run a good campaign when all is said and done.

  7. Okay, so that PPP poll of New Mexico:

    Americans are more fed up than ever with the 2 main political parties right now so we also looked to see how Gary Johnson might do in his home state running as a Libertarian and the answer is pretty darn well. In a 3 way contest with Obama and Romney he gets 23% with Obama at 44% and Romney at 27%. And in a 3 way with Gingrich, Johnson gets 20% to 45% for Obama and 28% for Gingrich.

    What do you think the chances are he would actually do that well in New Mexico?

    1. So he would hand NM to Obama. Way to break it, hero.

      1. It is Johnson’s mission to get elected. It is definitely not his mission to “help” a Republican win. If people don’t want to re-elect Obama, they should vote for Johnson. I fail to see the illogicality of that position.

        1. Except he has no chance of getting elected, so he’s just playing spoiler.

          1. He only has no chance of getting elected because people don’t vote for him. /yogi berra

            In all seriousness, the goal of a Presidential candidate is to win. If he does not win, then it really is the fault of the people who didn’t vote for him.

            If you do not want to re-elect Obama, vote for Johnson. It is that simple. If everyone thought like you did, there is no point in voting or even ever talking about politics.

            1. Would you make a $100 bet to that effect, with 100:1 odds against Johnson winning the presidency?

              1. ie, you gain $10000 if GJ wins, but lose $100 if he doesn’t. If you don’t take that bet, you don’t really think he can win.

                1. If you don’t take that bet, you don’t really think he can win.

                  That makes no sense.

                  Just because it is a longshot for someone to win does not mean it is out of total possibility he can win.

                  I fail to see how an arbitrary odds designation means I really “don’t believe” something. Run that past me again.

                  1. If you don’t take 100:1 odds that means you think he has less than a 1% chance of winning.

                    Thus, if the difference between Obama and the GOP candidate is even 1% of the difference between the GOP candidate and Gary Johnson, you’re hurting your cause by voting for Johnson rather than the GOP candidate.

                    1. Uh, that should be 2%, assuming Obama and the GOP candidate have roughly equal odds of winning. Still.

                    2. Is it *legal* for Americans to bet on election outcomes?

                    3. Not in NY on a NY election. I don’t think there’s any law against betting on presidential elections.

                    4. Ok –

                      .49 probability of continuing to drive toward the cliff at 90 mph.

                      .49 probability of driving toward the cliff at 95 mph

                      .02 probability of turning away from the cliff

                      Obviously the smart thing to do is vote for the first option.

          2. He’s just a spoiler?
            I heard the same thing being said of Ron Paul in 2k8 so in 2016 Gary might be in place to break the ice.

            1. Again, unlike Paul, GJ has too many gratuitous positions that the GOP doesn’t like. Maybe he should run as a Democrat in 2016 (haha).

          3. Republicans have no chance of being elected, either. I don’t follow what you’re saying.

      2. “So he would hand NM to Obama.”

        So what?

        Does any real libertarian think we’d be better off with John McCain right now? Seriously?

        1. I sure as hell do. And I say that as someone who didn’t think there was much difference back in 2008. Was I ever wrong.

          1. President Palin? Really?

            1. McCain is still alive.

              1. That’s what “they” want you to think.

              2. But he wouldn’t be if he was President. He is in poor health and being President is a very high stress job. The likelyhood of McCain dying from a heart attack by now if he was President is fairly significant.

          2. You’re kidding, right? He would have had the exact same advisors, and would have made the exact same decisions. The only difference being that instead of using drones, we would be using feet on the ground everywhere.

            1. Not really.

              Stimulus bill probably would have been half of what it was, Obamacare wouldn’t have passed, foreign policy would be largely the same, minus the “world apology tour”. Whether he would have been dumb enough to commit troops to Libya or launch an invasion of Iran, I don’t know but hopefully not due to pragmatic concerns (not enough ground troops to fight more than 2 wars at a time).

              So things might be marginally better with McCain as president, but not much.

              1. Oh yeah, and his advisors wouldn’t have been the same as Obama’s. I really can’t see McCain appointing Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff or Hilary Clinton at State, or Kathleen Sebellius at HHS, or “crappy nappy” at Homeland Sec, or Leon Panetta at Def, etc.

                1. … not that any of his would have been better in any substantial way, just saying.

                2. Stimulus bill would have been the same. 50/50 it would have been larger, or smaller. McCain was behind this as much, if not more, than Obama as this was becoming a problem while doing campaigning. The figureheads appointed may have been different, but the advisers that they listen to, financial experts, the military generals, would have been the same. The decisions coming out of the mouths would have ultimately been the same. Maybe more watered down, maybe less. Obama made a good effort to stop lobbyists for about 10 days. McCain probably would not have waited 10 days.

                  I do think we would have boots on the ground in Libya, Pakistan, and Iran by now. That being the largest difference.

        2. Does any real libertarian think we’d be better off with John McCain right now? Seriously?

          Another proud fan of my openly fascistic takeover of your personal medical decisions, from cradle to grave! DRINK!!!

      3. I think that Johnson would take a lot more Obama votes than Paul would. Plus, a lot of people fall for the “you’re throwing your vote away” crap and will be scared/cowed into voting for a D or R.

    2. And in a 3 way with Gingrich…

      Ewww….

    3. And in a 3 way with Gingrich

      A phrase that should never be spoken or written, ever again.

      1. I agree.

    4. “…in a 3 way with Gingrich…”

      It’s going to take a lot of booze to get that mental image out of my mind.

  8. If Paul doesn’t win the nomination, I’ll vote for Johnson. I don’t think Paul will run independently, but who knows? I realize Johnson isn’t a “pure” libertarian like Ruwart or somebody similar6, but he’s a lot better than Barr was. At least Johnson’ LP run doesn’t seem like a heel-face turn like Barr, former drug warrior. Also, another positive is that Johnson’s not an asshole and doesn’t like criticizing Paul, meaning there won’t be any awkward situations like in 2007 when Barr didn’t come to Ron Paul’s conference then forced him to choose between the LP and the CP. That ultimatum was idiotic. Btw, the main reason I’m picking on Barr is because 2008 was my first voting year so I was distraught when the LP nominated such a lackluster candidate. (Although I still voted for him, be cause there was no way I was voting for Baldwin.)

    Of course, this is all irrelevant if Paul somehow wins the Republican nomination, because I’ll probably vote for Paul in that case.

  9. Johnson failed to get any traction in part because he was fighting with Ron Paul over the same niche. Ron Paul had name recognition and organizational advantages due to his 2008 campaign and so it was hardly a contest. In other words, Johnson was to Paul what Huntsman is to Romney. The question remains, how does this affect the chances of a 3rd party Paul campaign should he fail to get the nomination?

    1. Ramesh Ponnuru has written today that if Ron Paul runs third party, and makes it possible for Obama to beat Romney, then the GOP would take it out on Rand Paul. I agree. So, I don’t think Ron will risk it.

      1. What happened to the Teddy Roosevelt Republicans after they “spoiled” the election for Taft in 1912 and gave the White House to the Dems? I think the Reps integrated Teddy and his followers back into the party.

        If voters walk out of a major party to the extent that they affect an election, the party usually wants to woo them back.

        Or you could reason that “oh, no, we have to let them beat us up, otherwise they’ll get mad!” Screw that.

    2. Ron Paul has already ruled out a third party run. I think he learned his lesson in 1988.

      1. He says he has no plans. Not the same. Plus, the premise of the question is that he’ll lose the Rep nomination, and Paul won’t make that concession.

    3. It’s not just name recognition. Paul is pro-life, anti-open-borders, and anti-gay marriage, as well as not being nearly as vocal about his drug war positions as GJ.

      1. Re: Tulpa,

        t’s not just name recognition. Paul is pro-life, anti-open-borders, and anti-gay marriage,

        Ok, so from newsletters we go to simple and straight defaming.

        He’s NOT anti-gay marriage. I DARE you find something that he has said or written that expressed unequivocally (no convoluted interpretations) that he is against gays marrying.

        Second, since when is being pro-life not being libertarian?

        […]as well as not being nearly as vocal about his drug war positions as GJ.

        You just won the “Head In Sand” award.

        1. Second, since when is being pro-life not being libertarian?

          Where did he say it was anti-libertarian to be pro-life?

          U don’t reed sew gud, OM.

          1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

            I didn’t catch that until I already clicked the submit button. So sue me.

            1. Then apologize.

              Go on – that’s what men do when they make mistakes.

              Say, “I’m sorry, Tulpa”

              1. yes, I’d love to see that too

                1. Re: rather,

                  yes, I’d love to see that too

                  That’s what the librarian said when you told him you whore only with librarians after you asked him if he wanted to see your navel.

                  1. What, exactly, is the problem with rather – or, I should say, what is your problem with rather?

                    What is it with the frequency (Kenneth) of your insulting replies?

                    1. Hell, if I know. I need a chart to keep straight the whom, the why, and those with a sense of humor…I’ve noticed bald men can laugh

              2. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                Say, “I’m sorry, Tulpa”

                Oh, fuck you, Rev. NOW that you ask in such a sarcastic way, there’s no way I am going to do it.

                Tulpa:
                Say “Yeah, thanks for nuthin’, Rev!”

              3. I never apologize to anyone and I never expect anyone to apologize to me.

                1. Oh, fuck you, Rev. NOW that you ask in such a sarcastic way, there’s no way I am going to do it.

                  Nice! See, in this way, you do not have to take responsibility for the error you made.

                  Really, OM, what got my goat about that is that you didn’t even bother to read the post to which you were responding. Like, you didn’t read it at all. Why? What is wrong with you?

                  1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                    Nice! See, in this way, you do not have to take responsibility for the error you made.

                    It’s just an error, Rev. Not a transgression. Not a crime. Get a life.

                    1. It’s just an error, Rev. Not a transgression. Not a crime. Get a life.

                      An error we call “Knee-Jerkism”, without even bothering to read that which you are responding to.

                      I don’t care if you apologize at this point, but I want you to see how fucking foolish it is to not even bother understanding the context of the conversation before you go blurting in your $.02. You’re like a dickheaded case of Asperberger’s.

                2. Oh Tulpa, I will teach you my little peanut butter grasshopper

          2. The answer the question, being pro-life is big government imposing their will into someones personal freedom. It depends how you want to define Libertarian, I guess.

        2. I’m pro-life and anti-open borders too, so I’m hardly disparaging those things. I don’t give a crap about gay marriage because it’s not an issue of coercion either way, but I don’t like the attention it gets from libertarians and the vassalships they forge with liberals over that issue.

          1. Fair enough. But I don’t believe your assessment of GJ’s lack of traction has to do with his pro-abortion stance compared to Paul’s pro-life stance, or that Paul is less vocal about his position on the drug war. I believe GJ is simply too new in this game, that’s all. Paul has been promoting libertarianism for 30 years.

      2. He wants the government to stay out of weddings and abortions so he doesn’t agree with a lot of the policies from the left, but that doesn’t mean he is pro-life or anti-gay marriage.

        When will the government learn to quit sticking its nose in my bed?

        1. You’re disputing that RP is pro-life? Heck, he has commercials to that effect.

          IIRC, he opposes gay marriage as a Texas voter but thinks the feds shouldn’t get involved beyond DOMA-type legislation to prevent states being forced to recognize other states’ gay marriages.

          1. IIRC, he has said that he would like to “get government out of the marriage business.”

        2. Correction: Paul wants the federal government to stay out of weddings and abortions. My main problem with Paul is that he feels the state government should have a say in things that I believe should be strictly left to the individual. Tyranny is still tyranny even on the state and local level.

      3. He’s not vocal about the drug wars? Where has your head been stuck for the last 20 years?

        1. He’s not as vocal as Johnson. Learn to read.*

          * if you don’t want to get insulted, don’t insult me.

          1. Vocality is irrelevant. Paul’s positions on drugs are ultimately more libertarian and thats what should count.

            1. yep

      4. Paul is pro-life, anti-open-borders, and anti-gay marriage

        But he would allow states to vote on abortion (well, let’s be honest, this is a soft issue and the president’s opinion doesn’t matter) and gay marriage. That’s not what social conservatives want.

        As for open borders, he hasn’t supported a border fence or mass deportation. Again, the president probably can’t implement these, but he’s not meeting with the GOP on a lot of these issues.

  10. This is an ego driven mistake.

    He should run for Senator from NM, would probably win and would definitely advance the libertarian agenda more than some BS vanity campaign will.

    1. I don’t know – assuming Paul doesn’t want to run as an independent/libertarian, it’s likely he’d endorse Johnson, which would hopefully be enough to get Johnson a national following and into the debates. If this happens, he’s more likely than anyone on the GOP side to pull votes from Obama voters, with his support for gay marriage, anti-WoD and anti-war (except for preventing genocides) stances. Not that he would win, but he’d be less of a “spoiler” even than Paul would considering he has less in common with the GOP base.

      1. direct you to the end of the last large RP thread, just prior to the highway funding story.

        There, you will find ample evidence as to the abject stupidity and possible retardation of one commenter using the handle, “Sevo”.

        That is all.

    2. Holy shit I think max is right…

      Seriously – having a few libertarian-leaning senators is better than a dozen failed presidential candidates.

      1. I agree, although I don’t think Johnson could upset Bingaman, and Udall would also be quite tough. When Big J was elected governer he wasn’t nearly as openly libertarian.

      2. That’s Maxxx, not Max.

      3. Yes, just to be clear, Maxxx, three X’s, is a fine fellow, and not the Max of old.

  11. I have to say – it’s a great pleasure to see The Great Cosmotarian Hope take the long walk off the short pier of political relevancy. Assuming he had any relevancy to begin with, that is….

    1. Slappy, just admit it. You wrote those fucking newsletters, didn’t you.

      1. Jinkies! The mystery is solved!

        1. “… and I would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those accursed meddling LIBERTARIANS — !!!”

          1. Now let’s see who he really is.
            *pulls off mask”*

    2. Everyone knows this site and all the people who post on it are just water-carriers for the rethuglican establishment. At most your all a bunch of “useful idiots”.

      Ron Paul is the absolute worst of the entire field. He says he wants to give people freedom but he really only cares about fredom to starve to death. None of the other rethuglicans are talking about cutting out welfare entirely because they know ppl will starve!

      There can be an honest debate about reforming entitlements but if you want to stop it alltogether your either actively malicious and want people to die, or so stupiid you think the “free market” will magiclly produce food on the table of low-income families.

      1. Nope, no magic about it. It’s called the laws of supply and demand. You should really read up on those before posting here again, Barker.

      2. Re: Travis Barker,

        Ron Paul is the absolute worst of the entire field. He says he wants to give people freedom but he really only cares about fredom to starve to death.

        I would rather starve as a free man than being fed as a slave.

        1. ya but would you rather write the nonsense about librarians than live as a free man?

          1. Re: rather,

            ya but would you rather write the nonsense about librarians than live as a free man?

            They’re not mutually exclusive, One-Who-Whores-With-Librarians.

            [That’s your Injun name]

      3. Paul is not saying he’d cut it off immediately. He says he’d phase it out (presumably in a manner similar to the Ryan plan…i.e. 55 years and younger start getting cuts. The younger you are, the more cuts).

        Even if he miraculously won the presidency, the cuts would never happen. The most he could do is get Congress to act together to override his veto…and believe me, they would. The GOP wants no part of real spending cuts.

        The U.S. is a plane that’s nosediving toward earth. Nothing can stop it now.

      4. Which is it: are people starving or do we have an obesity problem?

        1. Re: Toasted,

          Which is it: are people starving or do we have an obesity problem?

          In the mind of the schizophrenic liberal/Progressive, there’s an obesity problem because of free markets that would become starvation because of free markets.

  12. What do you mean by a “law” of supply and demand? Is that like a “law” of gravity? Is the economy bound to follow the law of supply and demand in the same sense that the physical world is bound to follow the law of gravity? If no, then again: what do you mean by “law”?

    Maybe by “law” you just mean “an empty analogy to science”.

    1. Re: Confused on purpose,

      Is the economy bound to follow the law of supply and demand in the same sense that the physical world is bound to follow the law of gravity?

      Yes.

      Next question, please?

    2. Is the economy bound to follow the law of supply and demand in the same sense that the physical world is bound to follow the law of gravity?

      OM stole my answer, but “YES”. To be more precise, people are bound to follow a model of trading. Look at children at a lunch table, trading Pop-Tarts for Fruit Snacks – that is supply and demand at the earliest stages of human development.

      It’s in our nature to trade. So, again…yes.

      1. Oh, “nature”, I like that one.

        So do human beings follow their “nature” in the same sense that falling rocks follow a law of “nature” – gravity? Can the laws of human nature be mathematized like laws of nature of physics? Is it possible for particular human beings to violate the tendencies of human nature? If so, how? Gravity can’t be violated. Unless “human nature” is a norm, not a law.

        1. Can the laws of human nature be mathematized like laws of nature of physics?

          yes – we call that “economics”. Although, for the record, just because something cannot be mathematized does not mean it cannot be a law. For example, Aristotle’s three metaphysical laws, which are called “meta”physical for a reason, your worship of physics aside.

          Gravity can’t be violated.

          Neither can supply and demand. It may seem as if it can be interrupted – subject to mathematically measurable interferences such as deadweight loss and taxes, for example – but supply and demand is a law nonetheless.

          Is it possible for particular human beings to violate the tendencies of human nature?

          You don’t have a very useful definition of “law” in your head, do you?

    3. Is the economy bound to follow the law of supply and demand in the same sense that the physical world is bound to follow the law of gravity?

      yes

    4. The Law of Supply and Demand is covered in every high school level economics course. So either you’re not in high school yet, or you never graduated high school. I wonder which one???

  13. Johnson expressed deep disillusionment with the process as his libertarian message failed to catch fire and he received almost no attention for his bid.

    It’s not only the message, J. Paul had 4 years to build his core following and his campaign. You just wanted to ride on his coattails.

    Besides, how “libertarian” can you be when you accept the notion of “humanitarian” wars (as if sending people to kill other people could be construed as humanitarian) and a “fair” tax (as if there could be a fair way to be robbed.)

    1. OM – Pope of Libertarianism and Grand Vizier to Our Lord the Anarchrist.

      Hail OM! Excommunications for everybody!

      1. You’re being an ass, Rev. Again.

        1. I am sorry, m’Lord. Perhaps 10 Hail Rothbards and an Our Spooner will absolve me of my heresy?

    2. as if sending people to kill other people could be construed as humanitarian

      If I sent my son over to his girlfriend’s house to kill her abusive father, not only would this be a permissible act in Anarchotopia, this would also be “humanitarian” as that word is commonly used.

      Perhaps you could try a little nuance in your vernacular?

      a “fair” tax (as if there could be a fair way to be robbed.)

      There is – equally. Perhaps I can lend you my dictionary?

      1. What wouldn’t be a permissible act in Anarchotopia?

        Killing someone for being merely abusive would not be consistent with NAP, that’s for sure.

        1. Killing someone for being merely abusive would not be consistent with NAP, that’s for sure.

          Interventions are greatly debated among NAP advocates, Tulpa. I say it would be consistent; you say it wouldn’t. There’s no solving the problem tonight.

          1. It’s kind of an irrelevant question anyway, since an act being consistent with NAP or not has no effect on whether it will be carried out, in Anarchotopia. It’s a matter of might makes right, with the mightiest party in the society ultimately becoming a de facto government.

            1. Re: Tulpa,

              It’s kind of an irrelevant question anyway, since an act being consistent with NAP or not has no effect on whether it will be carried out, in Anarchotopia.

              I beg to disagree. NAP rules are ubiquitous in almost every part of life, otherwise we would not be here discussing it using nice and expensive PCs.

              It’s a matter of might makes right, with the mightiest party in the society ultimately becoming a de facto government.

              Which makes the criticism of anarchy irrelevant, as it would always lead to your reductio ad absurdum. However it makes any defense of government irrelevant as well, as it would be logical to conclude that any government must be the descendant of such criminal enterprise, in which case there is no valid solution to people’s social exchanges – they would all devolve into a government of the mightiest, right?

              However, being that government cannot be omnipresent, your reductio is in itself fallacious.

              1. NAP rules are ubiquitous in almost every part of life, otherwise we would not be here discussing it using nice and expensive PCs.

                Fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”

                However it makes any defense of government irrelevant as well, as it would be logical to conclude that any government must be the descendant of such criminal enterprise, in which case there is no valid solution to people’s social exchanges – they would all devolve into a government of the mightiest, right?

                Only to those who fail to see the difference between North Korea and the United States (e.g. Old Mexican). IOW, only to those who commit the fallacy of the very reductio you are accusing others of.

                However, being that government cannot be omnipresent, your reductio is in itself fallacious.

                This just doesn’t make any sense.

                1. I still think Han Solo would kick Aragorn’s ass.

      2. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

        If I sent my son over to his girlfriend’s house to kill her abusive father, not only would this be a permissible act in Anarchotopia,

        Let me ask you this: If I sent MY son to kill YOU, would you find it as acceptable? Because saying that the girl’s father is “abusive” is a pretty subjective judgment – only YOU made it. I could accuse you of being a demon, and be just as justified – in MY mind – to send MY son to kill YOU.

        There is – equally [robbed].

        Just like having all women raped equally would make it fair – in YOUR dictionary, I fancy.

        See what happens when you lack thinking skills? Or when it’s too late at night and you can hardly see the keyboard?

        1. Let me ask you this: If I sent MY son to kill YOU, would you find it as acceptable? Because saying that the girl’s father is “abusive” is a pretty subjective judgment – only YOU made it. I could accuse you of being a demon, and be just as justified – in MY mind – to send MY son to kill YOU.

          And look who stumbled across the problem with anarchy! And it only took you a couple of years. Congratulations, OM, I didn’t think you would make it.

          Just like having all women raped equally would make it fair – in YOUR dictionary, I fancy.

          Fair =/= just. Fair, in the context of the fair tax, means “marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism”, or in other words “equal”. And yes, you can treat people badly and still treat them equally. We do it drug users all the time.

          It must really hurt to be this dumb. I imagine that you are surrounded by people who never challenge you, because you are a pretty good example of a DEMAND KURV libertarian.

          1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

            And look who stumbled across the problem with anarchy

            Did I, Rev? You mean to tell me that a government would’ve stop my son from killing a demon? I think you’re overestimating your chances.

            You seem to have conflated “anarchy” with “lawlessness.” This is typical of people who lack thinking skills. A good night sleep could help you, but that’s something to be seen.

            air, in the context of the fair tax, means “marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism”

            Totally agree! Just as “fair” rape would mean raping all women equally – in YOUR dictionary, I fancy.

            (HINT for the blockhead: There’s nothing fair about stealing from somebody – doesn’t matter if everybody suffers robbery at the same time. Only fools find comfort in an evil that falls on all, fool.)

            1. You seem to have conflated “anarchy” with “lawlessness.” This is typical of people who lack thinking skills. A good night sleep could help you, but that’s something to be seen.

              Gosh, thanks “V”. Never heard that argument before. Wow-wee, ya got me.

              Anarchy is the lack of a ruler, a government, a state. Yes, that would be “lawlessness” as that word is commonly used. If you come back with some smartass retort about the Laws of Gravity or the Laws of Nature, you should punch yourself in the throat right now and save us the time.

              Totally agree! Just as “fair” rape would mean raping all women equally – in YOUR dictionary, I fancy.

              Not “my” dictionary, asshat – the connotative definition of “fair” is “to treat equally”. And, I might add, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation by deliberately taking the word “Fair” in “Fair Tax” and ascribing to it a meaning that the proponents or even neutral parties did not intend.

              Now, gosh, why would you do that? It couldn’t be because you want to intentionally distort your opponent’s position…

              1. Re: Reb. Blue Moon,

                Anarchy is the lack of a ruler, a government, a state. Yes, that would be “lawlessness” as that word is commonly used.

                Don’t use the word as it is “commonly used”, that’s a clumsy cop-out. Use the word for what it MEANS – NO GOVERNMENT. That does NOT mean “lawlessness.” There’s NO GOVERNMENT in many places in the U.S. That does not mean there’s lawlessness. Government has proven the least able to keep the law.

                Not “my” dictionary, asshat – the connotative definition of “fair” is “to treat equally”.

                It means to act within the same rules, impartial, just, equitable – has many meanings. That does not mean being moral, which is what I’m trying to drive in your thick skull – you simply wanted to play cute by obviating this. Dividing the baby may have seem fair, but hardly moral. Not discriminating between people when robbing them may be “fair” as in “equitable,” but hardly moral.

                1. Dividing the baby may have seem fair, but hardly moral. Not discriminating between people when robbing them may be “fair” as in “equitable,” but hardly moral.

                  NO SHIT. You finally admit that I was right and that there is a way to say “Fair Tax” without you braying about it every thread? Thank Jesus (hay-soos) that you’ll finally shut the hell up about it.

                  Don’t use the word as it is “commonly used”, that’s a clumsy cop-out.

                  It’s called “speaking so that others understand you.” Lack of government = lawlessness. Too bad for you the rest of the world doesn’t contort to the definitions you carry around in your pretty little head.

                  There’s NO GOVERNMENT in many places in the U.S. That does not mean there’s lawlessness. Government has proven the least able to keep the law.

                  What law is that that is being “kept” OM?

                  1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                    You finally admit that I was right

                    You weren’t right, you nincompoop. What I said was that you obviated the most important thing of my ORIGINAL post, which is to point out that calling something “fair” does not make it moral. I tried several times to tell you, yet you kept at it.

                    Lack of government = lawlessness.

                    Yeah. And Theory = speculation, also in the vernacular. Except that it is not.

                    What law is that that is being “kept” OM?

                    Thou shall not kill.
                    Thou shall not steal.
                    Thou shall not be a conflating cretin.

                    1. What I said was that you obviated the most important thing of my ORIGINAL post, which is to point out that calling something “fair” does not make it moral. I tried several times to tell you, yet you kept at it.

                      Wow, that was your earth-shattering “point”? Gee, never would have gotten that…thanks.

                      The “point” here is that next time Gary Johnson says he supports the Fair Tax, I expect you to say nothing about it being “fair” to “rob”, because as we demonstrated through this little exchange, it is OK to say “Fair Tax” without your dumbass braying “ehhhnnn…you cannot say there is a ‘fair’ way to ‘rob’ people…ehhhnnn!”

                      Thou shall not kill.
                      Thou shall not steal.

                      Those laws aren’t even kept when there are police officers on the corner.

                      I am not going to argue with your ideal little Anarchist Brigadoon way up in the hills of Idaho.

                      Yeah. And Theory = speculation, also in the vernacular. Except that it is not.

                      Provide another definition, then. I have common use and the dictionary on my side, along with common sense. And you have…?

                    2. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                      rovide another definition, then.

                      A testable explanation for a natural phenomenon.

                    3. A testable explanation for a natural phenomenon.

                      So when you said that “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is a “law” that is being kept in Anarcho-America, how does that example fit into your definition? “Thou shalt not kill” is a “testable explanation for a natural phenomenon”?

                      That makes zero sense.

                    4. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                      “Thou shalt not kill” is a “testable explanation for a natural phenomenon”?

                      I don’t understand your question. I pointed out that the common use of a word can be misleading as in the case of Theory = speculation, when theory also means a testable explanation. I don’t get why you’re flying off a tangent like that.

                      Besides, thou shall not kill is a law people follow; it stems from the non-aggression principle. It does not mean it is universally followed as there are evil people out there, but this is the same regardless of the existence of government. Your contention that government makes a difference has been refuted by philosophers less inclined to engage in non sequiturs than you, e.g. Hans Hermann Hoppe.

                    5. Besides, thou shall not kill is a law people follow

                      No, it is not, as you admit in the next sentence.

                      So, I will keep contending that lack of government = lawlessness until you bother to stop being lazy and actually provide refutation of my definition. In other words, IF there is a lack of government, THEN it is appropriate to describe that state of affairs as “lawlessness”. That does not mean that the words “law” or “lawless” do not have additional meanings, but the use of word that has one meaning does not mean all other meanings are extinguished (this seems difficult for you to grasp).

                    6. How about “international law”, then? Does the “international government” has to exist in order for the “international law” to exist?

                    7. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                      it is OK to say “Fair Tax” without your dumbass braying “ehhhnnn…you cannot say there is a ‘fair’ way to ‘rob’ people…ehhhnnn!”

                      It ISN’T OK to say “Fair Tax”, Rev. It’s misleading, as “Fair” also means “Just” which comes from the Latin iustus. Just like saying “fair rape” is misleading as there’s nothing fair [just] about rape. There’s NO MORAL COMFORT in the fact that’s equitable – who would give a shit?

                      NOW do you get it?

                    8. It ISN’T OK to say “Fair Tax”, Rev. It’s misleading, as “Fair” also means “Just” which comes from the Latin iustus. Just like saying “fair rape” is misleading as there’s nothing fair [just] about rape. There’s NO MORAL COMFORT in the fact that’s equitable – who would give a shit?

                      Who says that when someone says something that has “no moral comfort” that that makes it misleading?

                      Your Latin citation is irrelevant and kinda funny. Do you think that makes you smarter somehow?

                      My point is that when someone says “Fair Tax” they mean “Equitable Tax”, not “Just Tax”, your whining over the fact that they mean the former when you desperately want them to mean the latter so can jump on your high horse notwithstanding.

                      In other words, OM, when the advocates for the Fair Tax say “Fair”, they mean “Equitable”. It is not misleading, and it is irrelevant whether it offers “moral comfort”.

                    9. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                      My point is that when someone says “Fair Tax” they mean “Equitable Tax”, not “Just Tax”

                      Right. And MY point is that it carries as much moral validity as saying “Equitable Rape.”

                      Get it? I don’t give a shit how “equitable” it could be, it IS STILL JUST PLAIN THIEVING.

                    10. Get it? I don’t give a shit how “equitable” it could be, it IS STILL JUST PLAIN THIEVING.

                      Oh, wow…you really thought that your equivocating on the word “fair” was the cleverest thing ever, huh?

                      Sorry I burst your bubble, buddy. No one is impressed that you deliberately misrepresented the word “Fair” as a criticism of the plan.

                      Here is a link for you.

                    11. I change definitions within a thread to suit my argument!

                      OM @ 2:26 a.m.
                      “Not discriminating between people when robbing them may be “fair” as in “equitable,” but hardly moral.”

                      OM @ 2:57 a.m.
                      “It’s misleading, as “Fair” also means “Just” which comes from the Latin iustus. Just like saying “fair rape” is misleading as there’s nothing fair [just] about rape.”

                      So, first, fair means equitable, but not necessarily moral.

                      THEN, using it in that exact same context, it is “misleading”.

                      You are stupid.

      3. And of course, that act would be followed by the girlfriend’s family sending her brother to kill you and your son to avenge the death of her father. Blood feuds — not just for Italian familias anymore.

        1. Re: Tulpa,

          And of course, that act would be followed by the girlfriend’s family sending her brother to kill you and your son to avenge the death of her father.

          Which is why libertarianism works with people that can think a little bit ahead than others. The blockheads simply die off.

          Bye bye, blockheads!

          1. Which is why libertarianism works with people that can think a little bit ahead than others. The blockheads simply die off.

            Or, you know, whoever decides to form a State in the resultant Power Vacuum will just push you up against the wall.

            I would round up me and 10 of my gun-toting buddies and enslave you (for one day!) just to teach you a lesson.

            1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

              I would round up me and 10 of my gun-toting buddies and enslave you (for one day!) just to teach you a lesson.

              You can certainly try.

              By the way, how would that be any different from what the government does NOW?

              http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo…..01226.html

              What separates the kind of criminal acts done by government from those done by a small group of roving malcontents? I can at least defend myself from the malcontents, by getting together another band from friends and neighbors.

              1. Your friends and neighbors wouldn’t be able to stand up to the sort of “malcontents” that would arise in the absence of govt. I suspect you’re used to dealing with one or two random burglars, so you think a couple of shotguns will do the trick.

                But it won’t. It would be like the mafia but totally out in the open.

                Tell me OM, would you rather be sitting in tax court on trial for not paying your income tax, or sitting in front of a mafia don with garden clippers around your balls because you didn’t give him his cut?

                1. Tell me OM, would you rather be sitting in tax court on trial for not paying your income tax, or sitting in front of a mafia don with garden clippers around your balls because you didn’t give him his cut?

                  This will be where OM pules and whines about how there is no difference, and we will know what we already knew, which is that he is not to be taken seriously.

                2. Re: Tulpa,

                  Your friends and neighbors wouldn’t be able to stand up to the sort of “malcontents” that would arise in the absence of govt.

                  You don’t know my neighbors.

                  I suspect you’re used to dealing with one or two random burglars, so you think a couple of shotguns will do the trick.

                  And a few .223s. And some Molotovs. And a few dogs.

                  It would be like the mafia but totally out in the open.

                  Even the Mafia knows when to keep the peace between them.

                  Tell me OM, would you rather be sitting in tax court on trial for not paying your income tax, or sitting in front of a mafia don with garden clippers around your balls because you didn’t give him his cut?

                  The Mafia is less ubiquitous, the Fed Gov is not. I’ll take my chances, thank you very much.

                  1. The Mafia is less ubiquitous, the Fed Gov is not. I’ll take my chances, thank you very much.

                    Man, right on cue.

                    What IF there was no Federal Government, OM?

                    1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                      What IF there was no Federal Government, OM?

                      Asked and answered, Rev. I said: I’ll take my chances.

                    2. I said: I’ll take my chances.

                      Great. Go find an island or some other isolated patch of land to take your chances on then. Don’t insist that the rest of us take those chances too.

                    3. Re: Tulpa,

                      Don’t insist that the rest of us take those chances too.

                      Don’t insist on having your pimp impose his will on me. I am not willing.

                  2. And a few .223s. And some Molotovs. And a few dogs.

                    That’s still not going to be nearly enough.

                    Ron Morris made a joke the other day on his radio show that when someone with experience meets someone with money, the one who had experience walks away with the money and the one who had money comes away with an experience. Pretty sure that works with a couple of rifles and molotovs in place of money.

                    1. Re: Tulpa,

                      That’s still not going to be nearly enough.

                      Enough for what? Are we talking about an invading army, or just a mob?

                      A few neighbors can stem the attack off a raving mob:

                      https://reason.com/archives/200…..singlepage

                      Sometimes, as in Memphis, the mere presence of armed blacks constrained white police or mob behavior. In other cases, armed blacks were partially successful; during the 1906 Atlanta riots, according to historian John Dittmer’s Black Georgia in the Progressive Era, although blacks “were unable to offer effective resistance when trapped downtown or caught in white sections of the city, they did fight back successfully when the mobs invaded their neighborhoods.”

                      Other times, resistance produced heavy bloodshed on both sides. In July 1919, a black who had floated into “white” water near a Lake Michigan beach in Chicago was killed. Whites rioted, blacks fought back with rifles, and the police stood aside. Twenty-three blacks and 15 whites were killed in a week of rioting.

                      In the 1921 Tulsa riots, armed blacks protected an alleged black rapist from a lynch mob. A small white army, led by the American Legion and with the approval of the police and city government burned a one-mile square black district to the ground. As many as 200 blacks died, but about 50 whites also lost their lives in the riot.

                    2. A small white army, led by the American Legion and with the approval of the police and city government burned a one-mile square black district to the ground. As many as 200 blacks died, but about 50 whites also lost their lives in the riot.

                      Wow, what a resounding success. Excellent case-in-point, OM.

              2. You can certainly try.

                That isn’t the world I want to live in. It’s yours. Just pointing that out.

                I can at least defend myself from the malcontents, by getting together another band from friends and neighbors.

                What is the difference between the Biggest Gang and the Government?

                NOTHING!

                Oh my god, OM finally gets it. OM, why not get together a band of friends and neighbors and defend yourself from the “criminal acts done by the government?”

                Oh, are they too big? Well, goddamn, how did that happen? Did a big group of people get together and form a gang? That thing that could never happen in anarchy?

                1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                  That isn’t the world I want to live in. It’s yours. Just pointing that out.

                  You’re in for a very rude awakening.

                  OM, why not get together a band of friends and neighbors and defend yourself from the “criminal acts done by the government?”

                  It has been done many times, Rev. The government is still too big for that – remember Waco?

                  That is the world we live in right now – where government is the biggest criminal enterprise of them all.

                  1. It has been done many times, Rev. The government is still too big for that – remember Waco?

                    That is the world we live in right now – where government is the biggest criminal enterprise of them all.

                    You mean our current anarchial world didn’t prevent this Gang from Rising to Power? Oh, the humanity! Anarchotopia, how could you let us down?

                  2. You still didn’t answer, “Oh, are they too big? Well, goddamn, how did that happen? Did a big group of people get together and form a gang? That thing that could never happen in anarchy?”

                    1. Anonymous spoofer guy gets it.

                    2. Re: Imbecile who should mind his own business,

                      Who the fuck asked you anything?

                    3. Hey, fine. You still didn’t answer “Oh, are they too big? Well, goddamn, how did that happen? Did a big group of people get together and form a gang? That thing that could never happen in anarchy?”

                    4. *Yawn

                      The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. This applies to stateless society as well. And just because power vacuums are filled does not mean that people have to be complacent and let it happen. The difference between now and the middle ages is 1500 years of experience ad the technology to share and REMEMBER that experience. In other words, just because a government arose out of quasi-anarchy before does not mean it would have to arise out of anarchy now or in the future.

                    5. Nobody asked me anything, you queer. I just interjected myself into your conversation because I felt like it, because it hurts my head to read all the stupid shit you type.

                      You could almost describe this situation as…wait for it…wait for it…ANARCHY!!!

                      So, you gonna use your shotguns on me through the internet (which I doubt you own, being a fat fuck in your mom’s basement entertaining delusions of grandeur and video-game political philosophies, internet tuff gai)?

                    6. Oh, and since you didn’t deign to answer this earlier, I’m reposting it:

                      I change definitions within a thread to suit my argument!

                      OM @ 2:26 a.m.
                      “Not discriminating between people when robbing them may be “fair” as in “equitable,” but hardly moral.”

                      OM @ 2:57 a.m.
                      “It’s misleading, as “Fair” also means “Just” which comes from the Latin iustus. Just like saying “fair rape” is misleading as there’s nothing fair [just] about rape.”

                      So, first, fair means equitable, but not necessarily moral.

                      THEN, using it in that exact same context, it is “misleading”.

                      You are stupid.

          2. Assuming you mean anarchocapitalism, not libertarianism, there’s no reason to think that everyone would eschew force for fear of retaliation. If my family is large and has a bigger arsenal and more gold etc. than yours does, maybe I don’t give a shit about your attempt at retaliation, since I’m sure it will fail, so I use force against your family whenever I please.

            At that point, we’re basically back in feudalism.

            1. Re: Tulpa,

              If my family is large and has a bigger arsenal and more gold etc. than yours does, maybe I don’t give a shit about your attempt at retaliation,

              A family that relies on force loses the gold quickly. This is why we’re NOT in a feudal system anymore.

              1. A family that relies on force loses the gold quickly. This is why we’re NOT in a feudal system anymore.

                Tell that to any wealthy despot on the planet. And realize, OM, that the only difference between “biggest family with gun” and “despotism” is that one gets to sit at the UN.

                1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                  Tell that to any wealthy despot on the planet.

                  Yeah, yeah. There’s so many of them, after all. They also drop like flies, a few times.

              2. A family that relies on force loses the gold quickly.

                You’re claiming that feudal systems can’t last very long? You know, the kind that lasted over a milennium in European history?

                If I were doing a reductio ad absurdum, your statement would be an excellent absurdum to aim for.

                1. Re: Tulpa,

                  You’re claiming that feudal systems can’t last very long? You know, the kind that lasted over a mil[l]ennium in European history?

                  They didn’t. The lower middle ages were ages of barbarian kings, not feudal lords. The middle-middle ages saw the rise of barons, but also the rise of merchant-cities, which undermined the feudal system. The money was in the cities, not with the barons.

                  1. we already live in an anarchial world.

                    After all, there is no one-world government, is there? There are competing security-providers (over 130 of them, to be precise) all over the globe.

                    1. Re: Rev Blue Moon,

                      There are competing security-providers (over 130 of them, to be precise) all over the globe.

                      They’re hardly “security” providers.

                    2. They’re hardly “security” providers.

                      Says you. Just because people don’t like Bud Light doesn’t make it “not beer”.

                    3. I’m generally with you on this, RBM, but I’m hesitant to actually call Bud Light “beer”.

                    4. Watered down piss ale would be more like it.

  14. Given the shit tank which is about to be dumped on Paul, I think I’ll be voting for Gary also. Besides there is no way the Republican party will beat Obama with Mitt or Gingrich when the only thing separating them from Obama is rhetoric. All Obama has to say is we [Mitt or Newt] have similar policy but I’m likeable or some high polling emotional trait.

    1. Re: Toasted,

      Given the shit tank which is about to be dumped on Paul, I think I’ll be voting for Gary also.

      Given? Are you making an assumption, or are you certain about it? Because compared to the other efforts against the other candidates and seeing how his numbers are going up instead of down, this “shit tank” you talk about is nothing more than a thimble.

  15. I pity the poor Irishman

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo…..01585.html

  16. Let’s say a miracle happens and Paul gets the GOP nomination, and then Newt runs under a 3rd party, siphoning enough votes away from Paul to hand the general election to Obama. Would you guys not be screaming bloody murder in that scenario?

    1. Re: Tulpa,

      Would you guys not be screaming bloody murder in that scenario?

      Of course we would – it would be perfect conversation for the bar. What else would it be?

    2. Actually that would be fine, because Newt is an establishment candidate. This would mean the Republican establishment has essentially left the GOP to form a new party, like the Neocon Party, only with a flashier name. Ron Paul may lose in 2012 because of a split vote, but the the base wil be so angered that the GOP leaders will be run out in shame, libertarians (or at least paleoconservatives) will control the GOP, and anyone who supported Gingrich is now in a third-party position, i.e. irrelevant in American politics.

      Basically, if we want to win, libertarians need to play as dirty as conservatives and liberals do at politics. Sucking up to Republicans like McCain, Romney or Gingrich hurt our cause, not help it.

      1. This type of scenario has played out in the past, but nothing like what you describe has resulted. Sens. Liebermann and Murkowski both won their elections without being the official party nominee, and neither have run away with their tails between their legs. In the CT case antiwar liberals were ultimately marginalized, and in AK the Tea Party, well we’ll see.

    3. Yeah, I would, and this is where I’m not applying consistent logic to all sides. I don’t care if Romney has a better chance than Paul against Obama (he probably does). I’d rather see Paul take the nomination and lose the election just to get some awareness of what libertarian talking points out in the open. I would also gladly support a Paul gumming up the works for a Newt or a Mitt in the general elections, for the same reason. But I would hate to see Newt do it to Paul (however unlikely this scenario). Why? Because Ron Paul is the only logical choice to reclaim some of our liberty. Newt is simply a douche.

      1. Wow are you people a bunch of pathetic losers. Better to “get awareness of what libertarian talking points” (whatever that means) than to actually win elections?

        1. I’d say we are good losers, not pathetic ones.
          If winning elections is so important, then you should have voted for Obama. I’ll vote for the person I think would be the best president, thank you.

          1. By doing so, you will ensure we have the worst President. Pathetic.

  17. I hope the Libertarian Party forces him to drop the more anti-libertarian stuff in his platform before giving him the nomination. He should stop hawking the Fair Tax and he should focus more on foreign policy.

    1. Re: Hirai,

      I hope the Libertarian Party forces him to drop the more anti-libertarian stuff in his platform before giving him the nomination.

      The same LP that nominated Barr? Good luck with that.

    2. I wonder how we’re supposed to raise money to pay down the national debt in the interim? FairTax isn’t perfect, but it beats the current tax model anyday. Unfortunately we need taxes now to pay for past spending.

      The alternative is defaulting on debt, which would be far, far more costly. I don’t want to go to war with China, sorry.

      1. The Fair Tax is a pragmatic solution to shit that HAS to be dealt with. I’ve gotten every indication that in the grand scheme, and ideologically, Johnson agrees with the basic rhetoric of “taxes are theft.” But without upending civilization you can’t just end taxes.

        And guess what? There would be federal taxes under Paul too. If he served 8 years, there’d still be federal taxes.

        This could be a real move toward a system that is better for everyone than the one we currently have.

        1. Land value taxes are a better, more economically sound solution (with no deadweight loss, punishing inefficiencies instead of productive activities), but I’d still take FairTax as my second choice.

          1. Prop – I’ve always read your thoughts on Land Taxes with a bit of a fish-eye, but lately I’ve been reading some of Henry George’s writings and I am coming around a little bit… But still rather uninformed.

            Are there other writers/thinkers who have advocated this same thing, perhaps more recently than George?

            1. Geolibertarianism is the school of thought that merges the two ideologies.

              That article mentions some advocates and writers. Recommended advocates for land value taxes include Thomas Paine (in Agrarian Justice) and Adam Smith (in Wealth of Nations). Nozick and Nock also generally supported the concept. Actually, agreement crosses political boundaries, with William F. Buckley and Ralph Nader both finding it a logical basis for taxation. Marx was afraid that if George’s system was implemented, it would reverse the inequalities of capitalism and render socialism less appealing or necessary.

  18. Libertarians just admit rhat you don’t want to lead anymore than you want to follow. Just destroy Paul now before the establishment has a chance to do it. Don’t give yourself a chance. You know you haven’t earned it. Go with the extremely uncharismatic Johnson, and tell yourself you are being principled. It is all you really care about, right?

    1. You’re a fucking idiot. Johnson dropping out of the GOP race HELPS Paul in the short term. He’s within a point of so of Gingrich in Iowa. Johnson’s polling 1%. Now Johnson voters can vote for Paul in the primaries and caucuses without hurting Johnson.

      And Paul voters will have a guaranteed fallback option in November, possibly even a means to have Paul on the ballot.

      1. You told me I’m wrong when all I did was state the obvious. You are the fucking idiot.

        1. Sorry, I’m not getting where we’re “destroy(ing) Ron Paul”. Many of us have expressed discomfort with his affiliations and the content of his newsletters, yet most will still vote for him in the primary. Johnson withdrawing from the GOP race to join the LP helps Paul, it helps Johnson and it helps us have an eminently qualified candidate to vote for next November that isn’t a complete unknown with no experience.

    2. Libertarians really do look for a way to lose. Johnson could have dropped out and endorsed Paul, but that would make sense.

      Instead he’ll take his lackadaisical half-assed campaign somewhere else. Proving to Republicans that Libertarians aren’t to be trusted.

      1. Maybe he read some of Paul’s newsletters.

    3. Maybe some of us aren’t racists.

      1. Maybe some of us don’t want to vote for an unknown like Mary Ruwart or Mike Badnarik next November. Sorry for wanting a viable option in the likely event Paul loses the GOP nomination and does not want to run in November.

  19. Help wake up the ‘out of touch’ Christian vote.

    Link articles and free artwork in blogs and emails:

    The ‘Other’ 2012 Christian US Voters Guide

    http://templestream.blogspot.c…..guide.html

    Templestream Flickr photostream

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/49509398@N02/

  20. .0.04% of the popular vote here we come!

    … and yes, I’ll be a part of that vote.

    1. If he gets the nomination, which is a big if, he could do well in NM, especially as it’s a heavily Hispanic state where both candidates are likely to be anti-immigration.

  21. Gary who?

    I expect he’ll have the same success in pursuing the LP nom as he did in the GOP.

    1. Particularly if he brings the same lack of effort and soporific delivery.

    2. Gary who? One of the few governors in recent history who when he left office his state was actually in better shape than when he first entered office.

  22. Yeah that actually makes a lot of sense dude. WOw.

    http://www.Complete-Anon.tk

  23. I certainly hope he fares much better in the Libertarian Party, especially if Ron Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination.

  24. Given some of the crazies in our party, I still wouldn’t be surprised if we nominated (gag) Wayne Root or some loser who thinks 12 consecutive terms on his county LP central committee is enough qualification to be President of the United States.

    1. It wouldn’t surprise me. That LP convention is the best reality TV ever.

    2. That’s why I was thinking that reviving the Reform Party might have been a better outlet, but…

      The LP will always find ways to shoot itself in the foot. Barr would have done better last time if he had the remotest credibility as a libertarian. His recent endorsement of Newt Gingrich indicates his entire run was a huge sham.

      1. Isn’t Barr still on the LNC? How can one be an official of the LP and endorse a candidate of another party for an election in which the LP will field its own candidate?

        1. The fact that he’s endorsing a candidate of another party is far less concerning than the fact he’s endorsing arguably the MOST statist candidate of that party, out of a half-dozen, especially when there are two actual libertarians in that race.

          1. You’re concerned with whom he chose to endorse.

            I’m concerned that an official of my political party chose to endorse a candidate of *another* political party. I don’t care who he endorsed – it’s wrong for a party official to act in such a manner which is detrimental to the party he’s supposedly elected to represent.

  25. Good for him.

    His fair tax idea sucks, but at least he’s no racist.

    1. I’d like someone making this statement to argue for either a.) a better tax alternative than the FairTax, b.) preserving the current system over a long period to pay down the debt with gradual scalebacks or c.) defaulting on the national debt.

      Considering many libertarians’ refusal to accept any tax as legitimate, they fail to state whether the likelihood of going to war with China over default is preferable.

  26. Not to nitpick, but as a New Mexico resident, you can only register as a Democrat, a Republican, or “not affiliated.” You can’t register as a Libertarian. Believe me, I tried.

  27. Now I have to question his judgment: He ditches a party that got him elected governor twice for a party that’s never gotten anyone elected to an office anywhere near that high.

    1. The *party* didn’t get him elected – he was elected with the votes of the residents of New Mexico.

  28. The fact that hes doing this shows that Republicans were right not to care about him.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.