Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson on Paul Ryan: "He is anything but a libertarian"

|

Austin – Gary Johnson is not happy that some in the media call Republican vice presidential candidate and Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan a libertarian.

"He voted for the Patriot Act, he voted for the National Defense Appropriation Act, he voted to ban online poker, he's proposing a budget that gets balanced in thirty years. He is anything but a libertarian, anything but," said Johnson after a packed campaign dinner at Hill's Café.

Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee for president, noted that Ryan was a strict social conservative who voted to restrict abortion rights and against marriage equality.

"Paul Ryan submitted personhood legislation that is anything but libertarian," he said. Johnson's eyes widened and his volume increased as he went into detail about Ryan's support for a national version of Virginia's controversial transvaginal ultrasound law.

Johnson suggested that all the talk of Ryan as a libertarian and follower of Ayn Rand may help him because people will see pretty quickly that former New Mexico governor is the only real libertarian running.

Many libertarians credit Rand's novels with changing their worldview but Johnson said he did not read her novels until the mid-1990s when he was governor of New Mexico.

"I came away from Atlas Shrugged and able to verbalize that the best thing I can do is be the best that I can be, something that I held to before I ever read it," he said.

"Atlas Shrugged for me was a validation of my own thoughts. There was no conversion," he said.

Johnson suggested that his wife read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead so she could get a better understanding of his worldview. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Protesters Stroll Into Uranium Plant

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. Obviously (and according to ALL of the liberal/progressive persuausion) this Gary Johnson fellow simply has no clue what it means to be a libertarian.

  2. Gary Johnson doesn’t understand the finer points of Libertarianism either, he’s celebrated the Central bank before.

    1. That makes him a rational libertarian then. Someone has to manage the USD and Congress is too inept to do it.

      And don’t me give this 19th century bank scrip bullshit.

      1. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

        Someone has to manage the USD and Congress is too inept to do it.

        Saying that makes you an irrational statist. There’s no good reason for someone to manage money when money is a market-created phenomenon.

        Or, it just makes you an economics ignorant boob, Shrikey-Pikey.

        1. Don’t be an idiot. You are suggesting a barter system for the largest economy in the world.

          What export partner wants Wachovia tokens? Or BBT scrip? Or some other jackass bank bullshit?

          Or should we adopt the Euro or the Peso as our currency to fill the void?

          1. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

            Don’t be an idiot. You are suggesting a barter system for the largest economy in the world.

            I’m not suggesting anything of the kind, shriek. What I’m telling you is that you are an economics ignoramus. That’s all.

            What export partner wants Wachovia tokens?

            Have you given the export partner a choice, moron? If Federal Reserve ass wiping paper is so good, why then are there Legal Tender Laws?

            Or should we adopt the Euro or the Peso as our currency to fill the void?

            YOU can do whatever YOU want. There is no “we”.

            1. There are many legal alternatives to the USD here. Go for it.

              People want FRNs. I do and so do 99% of the non-batshits out there.

              You demand your Yen then – or whatever. I don’t give a shit.

              Export partners have many choices other than the USD.

              1. No they’re not. Why the legal tender laws?

                1. Legal tender laws say that the USD is legal – but so are other currencies.

                  Who refuses the USD? Dumbass.

              2. Re: Palin’s Buttplug,

                There are many legal alternatives to the USD here. Go for it.

                *cough!* Norfed! *cough*

                People want FRNs. I do and so do 99% of the non-batshits out there.

                People have to pay their taxes in FRN’s. People that have tried to pay in something other than FRN’s end up being prosecuted.

                That’s enough of a forceful incentive to only accept FRN’s — the alternative is prison.

                You’re not only a liar, shriek. You’re an ignorant liar – you make shit up about things you do not even understand.

                1. You Dumbass.

                  I use Euros here every month. I’ll take Aussie Dollars and Maple Leafs too.

                  I will take a hundred legit currencies.

                  You nutcases only want currency barter.

                  1. It’s funny to watch Shriek create strawmen and then take them apart, thinking it means he wins the argument

            2. why then are there Legal Tender Laws?,/i

              Legal tender laws and the FED are not the same thing.

              You can have a central bank without legal tender laws.

              In fact if you have a central bank it would be better not to have legal tender laws.

    2. I believe he has said he would not veto a bill ending the Federal Reserve

    3. he’s celebrated the Central bank before.

      A central bank is really not a libertarian issue. The constitution does say the federal governmetn prints the money.

      Plus if you don’t like US dollars then go buy some other currency. You are perfectly free to do so.

      Anyway a central bank that acted reasonably probably could work. The Euro central bank is a pretty good example of this….the only reason it is falling apart is not become it inflated itself in stupidity but because member states blew up their budgets and forget that debt needs to be payed back.

      1. Completely agree.

        Shocker! The ECB has no employment mandate like the US. Conservatives should love the ECB.

        1. The ECB is also a billion times more transparent then the FED Shrike.

          How about we Audit the FED like those crazy eruo-trash socialists do with the ECB?

          1. Why do you fuck up like that after an astute comment?

            The Fed is audited each year by Deloitte and the GAO.

            Dr. Gyno from Texass does not know what “audit” means.

            1. The audits are grossly incomplete and the public is not allowed to see all the contents. You’re retarded.

              1. You’re an idiot.

                As a wonky dipshit I actually read the 53 page audit of the Fed just last year. The Fed does not even print money – the Bureau of Engraving and Printing does.

            2. The Fed is audited each year by Deloitte and the GAO.

              Which compared to the transparency of the ECB is a joke.

              The Deloitte and GAO don’t even look at what is going on at the discount window.

              Seriously shrike quit being a liar. You know as well as i do that the FED is way more secretive then the ECB is.

              1. You’re full of shit now.

                Dodd-Frank (2010) put all the Fed’s laundry out for public view.

                Bernie Sanders jacked off to it (needlessly)

                1. Give me the link to the FED’s equivalent of this:

                  http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/st…..17.en.html

                  and this:

                  http://www.ecb.int/stats/servi…..ex.en.html

                  You are quickly drowning in your own shit shrike.

                  1. Shrike doesn’t drown in it. It’s his habitat.

                    The Fed does not even print money – the Bureau of Engraving and Printing does.

                    You are one mendacious retard Shreek.

                    1. You’re right, they don’t “print” money. They simply invent it in a ledger column and then use that new money to buy T-Bonds.

                      Perhaps you’ve head of QE and QE2? You might have even heard rumors of an upcoming QE3…this is what that fucking means and to pretend that isn’t the equivalent of printing money is disingenuous.

      2. Woah woah woah since when does “it’s in the Constitution” = libertarian. That’s horseshit.

        1. So what makes the value of currency a libertarian issue?

          Be specific.

          I fail to see why the inflation or deflation or flat value is specifically libertarian.

          A business can make as many gizmos as it likes. It can flood the market with them and drive the price into the ground. Why is currency any different?

          Note: I know why it is a bad idea to throw money out of helicopters…not all bad ideas are unlibertarian.

          1. You’re seriously asking what the difference between a private business and a government monopoly is?

            1. There is no reason why a federal money press has to be a monopoly.

              If you want to argue that legal tender laws are unlibertarian then you are correct, they are unlibertarian.

              1. Basically the libertarian position is that currencies should compete like everything else in the marketplace and that having a government monopoly on money is bad.

                I refer you to the works of F.A. Hayek for more on this topic.

          2. Talk about goal post shifting, I was addressing this statement:

            A central bank is really not a libertarian issue. The constitution does say the federal governmetn prints the money.

      3. It is a libertarian issue because of its monopoly and legal tender laws.

        Remove that, allow free market money, treat the central bank just like any other bank in a free banking system and only then can you say “A central bank is really not a libertarian issue”

        1. Why are legal tender laws and central bank connected?

          Most if not all of the legal tender laws came after after we created a central bank..not before and not at the same time.

          In fact you could make a better connection with income tax law and legal tender laws then you can with a central bank.

          It is only the legal tender laws that are unlibertarain.

          pot prohibition is also unlibertarian…just because pot is illegal does not make the central bank unlibertarian.

          1. Because the central bank is given its powers through government-granted privilege and monopoly. Why is that hard to understand?

            1. yeah that’s joshua’s point. The libertarian argument is not *necessarily* anti-central bank, (especially if it had no gov’t privilege) but anti-legal tender laws, and carefully parsing the difference is important, if annoyingly pedantic.

  3. Who the fark is calling Paul Ryan a libertarian? All people are saying is that he is the closest thing to one compared to Obama, Biden and Romney.

    1. Who the fark is calling Paul Ryan a libertarian?

      The liberals that think balancing the budget in a few decades is unacceptably radical?

      1. Clinton did it.

        How radical for liberals.

        1. Well the Dems in Congress then were young and naive, and they only did it a little, and didn’t really like it.

          1. Actually it was Republicans who controlled congress when Clinton balanced the budget.

            1. Bullshit.

              The Omnibus of 1993 balanced the budget without a single GOP vote (later).

              http://business.highbeam.com/2…..ng-federal

              1. Maybe Obama should pass a piece of paper saying ‘balance it’ and then take credit when somebody down the road does it for him. I’m sure Shriek in his retarded lunacy would lap it up.

              2. The Omnibus of 1993 balanced the budget without a single GOP vote (later).

                The budget was not balanced until the late 90s asshole.

                1. Apparently, in Shrike’s world the budget is balanced any time there is a projection for a surplus in the next decade.

        2. Buttplug said in reference to balancing the budget:
          “Clinton did it. How radical for liberals.”

          Considering that he’s hailed as the grand example of letting Democrats have the presidency and giving us a booming economy, its a wonder why they recently lecture us about how bad an idea a balanced budget is.

          If Paul Ryan’s budget is bad, Clinton’s would be treated as the insane work of an austerity-driven madman.

    2. I saw it just today in an article which claimed that Ryan liking Rand was worse than Romney liking “Battlefield Earth”… It’s like nobody has paid attention to anything Ryan has said or done in the current millennium.

    3. Conservatives are calling him a libertarian…but they are saying it like it is a good thing.

      1. TEAM RED is all talk. They’ll still vote for Bush IV instead of Johnson.

        1. My point was that there are people of all political stripes calling Ryan a libertarian…even though he is not.

          1. Agreed. And all this means is we get to take the blame when Romney and Co. (continue to) fuck everything up.

            1. We’ll take the blame anyway.

            2. then vote for obama. I am being serious. I would, but I live in cali, so I can afford to vote my conscience. I’m still gonna hold my nose and vote for Ron Pual.

              1. …who isn’t on the ballot? Regardless of how big of a fan of Johnson you are or aren’t, voting LP helps with ballot access at minimum.

  4. Johnson suggested that his wife read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead so she could get a better understanding of his worldview

    Is this a euphemism for “asked for more hate fucking”?

    1. Squirrels! 2nd paragraph is not a quote.

      1. But it should be.

  5. Johnson informing the general voting population that Paul Ryan is not a libertarian is meant to boost Ryan’s electability, right? Because the opposite is the reason other foes are labeling Ryan a libertarian.

  6. “He voted for the Patriot Act, he voted for the National Defense Appropriation Act, he voted to ban online poker, he’s proposing a budget that gets balanced in thirty years. He is anything but a libertarian, anything but,” said Johnson after a packed campaign dinner at Hill’s Caf?.

    And how do you leave TARP off of that list?

    1. Or Medicare Part D, the Patriot Spy on America Act, the Iraq War, and for No Child Left Behind federal education expansion.

      In other words – he is a Bushpig.

      1. Is that the polar opposite of Obamapig or are they both just pigs?

        1. The Bushpigs are the biggest gluttons of all time.

          The Republicans promise less intrusive, less expensive government. But will they deliver? In the past, they have said they would shrink the state, but then they came into power and spent more. Consider George W. Bush’s eight horrendous years: The budget grew 89 percent?from $1.86 trillion to $3.52 trillion.

          https://reason.com/archives/201…..-cut-gover

          Spending is still at $3.5 trillion or so.

          89% pal. Bushpigs.

          1. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

            The Bushpigs are the biggest gluttons of all time.

            Nobody disputes the profligacy of Bush, Shriek. What people ask you is what so different about Obama’s brand of profligacy? Wasted resources are still wasted, forever. Doesn’t matter who signed the checks.

            1. What is the difference?

              About $1.5 trillion a year. Clinton WAS the small gov/balanced budget hero.

              I didn’t know it until the Bushpigs spent everything in sight.

              1. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

                What is the difference?

                About $1.5 trillion a year.

                What are you talking about? The current deficits are as big as the last year of Bush’s deficit but much greater than all the previous deficits

                http://blog.heritage.org/2009/…..-pictures/

                Clinton WAS the small gov/balanced budget hero.

                Yeah, he “balanced” the budget by using tricks that would’ve landed anybody in jail.

                And you haven’t really answered the question. EVEN if Obama’s deficits were smaller (according to the government but not according to GAAP rules), it is STILL deficit spending; it is STILL profligacy and waste. What’s the difference?

                  1. Fuck Heritage. They are GOP liars.

                    Post a Reason.com chart, asshole.

                    1. The data on that page was provided by the CBO, dipshit.

                    2. Re: Palin’s Buttplug,

                      Fuck Heritage. They are GOP liars.

                      Do you dispute the numbers in gray? They indicate that the only Bush deficit comparable to Obama’s is the one for FY 2009, stemming from a budget signed by Obama – he could’ve vetoed it. Obama increased the federal deficit in 2009 with the so-called “stimulus” which stimulated nothing; by extending or expanding entitlements and other goodies. By giving money to his political cronies; and so on. You still don’t want to accept that just because you don’t like the guy that signs the checks, wasted money from Obama disappears from the Earth just as easily as wasted money from Bush.

                      We have Bushpigs and we have Obamapigs, and we will certainly have Romneypigs when (or if) they come to power. It doesn’t matter who signs the checks, moron!

                    3. Do you dispute the numbers in gray? They indicate that the only Bush deficit comparable to Obama’s is the one for FY 2009,

                      I dispute them. Obama signed the 780 billion stimulus in Feb of 2009…yet that chart attributes it to Bush.

                1. The “Obama deficit” is the same one the Bushpigs handed him – $1.3 trillion or so.

                  Do you think Obama would actually roll back a Bush program? Don’t be naive.

                  Gridlock is the best we can do – Dem POTUS and a GOP House.

                  1. The 09 deficit was a combination of Bush and then laws signed by Obama adding on to it.

                    I don’t think anyone thought Obama would roll back a Bush program. Which isn’t surprising, since he’s a big-government progressive. Which is why libertarians don’t like him

                    1. No it wasn’t. The CBO called it $1.2 trillion before the Bushpigs could slink out of town in Jan 2009.

                      http://www.politifact.com/trut…..istration/

                  2. The “Obama deficit” is the same one the Bushpigs handed him – $1.3 trillion or so.

                    Nope in February of 2009 it was Obama who signed the 787 billion dollar stimulus not Bush.

                    signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..ct_of_2009

                    Can you say “I am a full blown hack and liar” Shrike?

                    Cuz that is what you are.

                2. What is the difference? Bush programs CAUSED THE HUGE DEFICITS, YOU DUMBASS!

                  1. And Obama has supported them every step of the way. No one is defending Bush you dumbfuck. “BOOOSH DID IT FIRST!” is not an excuse for Obama to continue to do the same.

                    The omnibus and stimulus acts added hundreds of billions of dollars to the budget that year. And even if it’s true, what’s you’re point? If a CEO doubled business spending on something they couldn’t afford, would the next CEO be excused if he just kept spending at those levels?

                    1. You can look at facts and realize Bush was just worse, and not be any less of a libertarian. What does holding an obviously disingenuous false equivalence narrative have to do anything? Sounds like a personal problem.

                    2. Tony wtf are you talking about? Is “better than Bush” the standard we know hold presidents to?

                    3. He should be considered a low bar, yes.

                    4. And Obama has been extremely similar to him. What does that say about him?

                    5. But he hasn’t in general, at all. For some reason you feel the need to excuse Republicans’ abuses and excesses by being too lazy to make an actual comparison. What does that say about you? You’re either a partisan or an unwitting partisan?

                    6. Holy crap. How have I excused Republican abuses? By holding Obama to the same standard? Bush and Obama have both increased the power of the government in virtually all areas. Spending, regulating, spying, war, etc. Apparently not being partisan = being partisan in your world. Par for the course

                  2. What is the difference? Bush programs CAUSED THE HUGE DEFICITS, YOU DUMBASS!

                    That might have been a good excuse in early 2009.

                    In 2012 while we are still spending 1.2 trillion in the red; not so much.

                    That horse you have been beating rotted away into dust like 3 years ago Shrike…time to find a new one.

                    1. Shriek honestly thinks tu quoque is a rational argument. That’s really all you need to know.

                    2. Shriek doesn’t know what a rational argument is or what an argument is at all.

      2. He didn’t leave the Patriot Act off the list. Can you not fucking read?

        1. That’s been established.

        2. Its so fucking bad I counted it twice.

          Thanks, Bushpigs.

          And fuck you all.

          1. And thanks to Bushpig Obama for renewing it.

  7. He is anything but a libertarian, anything but,” said Johnson after a packed campaign dinner at Hill’s Caf?.

    Look, Johnson, do you want the smug, effete Manhattan leftists to have something to tutt-tutt about on the cocktail party circuit or not?

  8. 10 bucks says that Johnson will get called a right-winger or a conservative by The New Yorker before the election.

    Who wants a piece of that action?

    1. not me. i actually have a subscription to that rag. imo, about the most reliable representative organ of the east coast urban (especially new york obviously) liberal mindset.

    2. I’ve got $10 that says they don’t mention him.

      1. You don’t have 10 dollars. Admit it.

        1. He doesn’t need it.

          He would win that bet.

  9. “‘Paul Ryan submitted personhood legislation that is anything but libertarian,’ he said. Johnson’s eyes widened and his volume increased as he went into detail about Ryan’s support for a national version of Virginia’s controversial transvaginal ultrasound law.”

    Oh dear lord, he swallowed the progressive talking points hook, line and sinker. The Va law doesn’t require any vaginal penetration, but abortionists generally do.

    I think Johnson’s presence in the debates would do a service in rebutting the “OMG Ryan is a radical libertarian” meme, as well as raising issues which the other candidates only approach slyly and indirectly. He could put the debt issue front and center.

    Which is precisely why they don’t want to debate him, of course.

  10. Obama is a Bushpig. FACT.

  11. So is Paul Ryan being smeared as a libertarian part of that libertarian moment:

    https://reason.com/archives/200…..ian-moment

    1. All the conservatives I talk to call Ryan a libertarian.

      They also claim they are libertarians as well.

      So yes a bunch of conservatives like the word libertarian and like to see themselves and their candidates described using that word.

      I think 3 years ago and before it would not be like this.

      Compared to years past it is a libertarian moment…at least rhetorically.

      1. It’s a very good sign. Means we hold the moral and intellectual high ground. We are winning. Slowly.

        1. I am skeptical.

          The progressives stole the liberal name I see no reason why the conservatives couldn’t take away the libertarians name and use it to spread their bullshit.

          If Ryan is called a libertarian then acts like a conservative that would be a terrible blow to libertarianism.

          1. A lot of modern conservatives like the word “liberty” but then end up twisting its meaning quite a bit

            I mean most conservatives say they’re big advocates of liberty and since libertarians are all about liberty that makes them libertarians too.. is usually the rationale.

            I agree with Cytotoxic in that the label is seen to have positive attributes to at least some in the right wing which is good, but I’m also with you on the skepticism, like the hijacking of liberalism

          2. I was thinking the same thing. The same way the left-leaning statists hijacked and corrupted the liberal label, the right-leaning statists are now trying to hijack and corrupt libertarian. We’re going to need to come up with another title. Then in about 30 to 50 years once people start to figure out what [insert new label] stands for, then the statists will steal that label too.

            1. These conservative hijackers won’t succeed. Our champions ex The Pauls are too visible and command too much attention.

  12. He’s not a libertarian except in the most important way: taking money from poor, old, disabled people, children, teachers, police, scientists, and everyone else not in the 1%, and giving it to the 1%. Might as well make it priority. it always seems to be top of the list.

    1. Right Tony. Increasing spending is really cutting spending. Not taking from one person = stealing from another. Libertarians aren’t the ones who supported bailing out failed mega corporations

      1. It’s not laundry day, so you can keep your list of mindless cliches.

        1. Oh it’s hilarious how self-unaware you are. Mindless cliches are all you have to offer

          1. There are only so many ways to describe arithmetic.

            Only slightly more complicated is the idea that whatever your moral preoccupation with taxes, the necessary fiscal policy outcome of that hangup won’t necessary be optimal for a modern civilization. To believe that your totally out-of-mainstream moral dogma leads to the best possible world is just religion.

            1. Just keep it coming Tony. I couldn’t parody you any better than you do yourself

              1. What Cali said. Shriek is energetically fanatically insane to the point of being shizo. Toney is just dull constant but awe-inspiring imbecility.

    2. If that is the most important then why are all the libertarians here saying he is not a libertarian?

      Shouldn’t we have solidarity with the guy who holds the most important libertarian trait?

      1. That was my argument.

        Face it, libertarians pretend to care about foreign brown people as much as liberals. The plight of the billionaire having his labors’ fruits stolen to pay for the rudiments of civilization is immediate and visceral to all you independent-minded lower middle class armchair FOX news philosophers.

        1. Apparently, in Tony’s universe, civilization only developed about 100 years ago. And progressives only want to tax billionaires (and the billionaires have enough money to fund all of Tony’s pet projects).

        2. Tony quit being an idiot.

          All the libertarians are saying Ryan is not a libertarian because he has an aggressive foreign policy.

          Just stop being a lying troll…try it for a day, you might enjoy it.

          1. “All the libertarians are saying Ryan is not a libertarian because he has an aggressive foreign policy.”

            I don’t think this is true. Ryan’s foreign policy is unlibertarian, but there are plenty of votes from him on fiscal/economic and social issues that prove him to be no sort of libertarian

            1. Ryan’s foreign policy is unlibertarian

              Then why are you arguing with me?

              1. Because you straight up said that foreign policy is the reason libertarians are saying he’s not a libertarian, which would seem to imply that his views on other issues would be considered libertarian. Which they aren’t

                1. Fine.

                  Ryan’s foreign policy record is one of the major reasons libertarians do not consider him a libertarian.

                  Happy?

                  1. I wasn’t trying to attack you, no need to get snarky. I interpreted your post in a way that was apparently different that what you intended (but was certainly a reasonable interpretation) and responded accordingly. It seems that we actually agree on the subject. Good

          2. He’s a Republitarian. A libertarian who was interested in being a successful national politician. I mean, all the politicians you guys support are exactly as useful to ending foreign entanglements as the ones perpetrating them. Unless the talk of fringe candidates somehow isn’t less cheap than that of real politicians.

            1. Is saying a few nice things about Ayn Rand really enough to qualify someone as a “libertarian” these days? What evidence from his voting record is there to suggest he’s a libertarian of any kind?

              1. Purge him if you like and vote for Obama, but if I were you I’d take what I could get.

                His number one domestic priority is taking money from poor and old people and giving it to billionaires. Seems to be the most important libertarian moral imperative of our time, judging by this place.

                1. What programs has Ryan proposed to eliminate? Which ones has he proposed to cut? And I mean actually cut. Increasing spending by a trillion dollars over the next decade is not libertarian

                2. Yes, clearly all of our railing against redistribution of wealth is just a smokescreen. You are one mendacious fuck.

                3. So “not giving money” = “taking money”? The usual excuse that the bottom line budget outcome is the same doesn’t really work in this kind of general context, no?

                4. Give one example, or shut the fuck up.

              2. Objectivist =//= libertarian

            2. Unless the talk of fringe candidates

              umm Tony i don’t know how often you read the articles here…

              But if you do you might notice that a large portion of them are about Johnson and Ron Paul….

              We are libertarians…we are all about the fringe candidates.

              So stop being an asshole and start actually describing us the way we are.

              Who knows Tony maybe we could actually have a rational debate and find common ground on the issues we agree on.

              1. “Tony quit being an idiot”; “Stop being an asshole”

                Oh you guys.

              2. Say that it’s best to fund the programs we buy and vote on them in an honest democratic way rather than massively cut taxes first then claiming there’s a crisis, then I’ll stop accusing you of taking your cues from Norquist and the Republicans.

                1. “T o n y| 8.18.12 @ 9:02PM |#

                  Say that it’s best to fund the programs we buy and vote on them in an honest democratic way rather than massively cut taxes first then claiming there’s a crisis, then I’ll stop accusing you of taking your cues from Norquist and the Republicans.”

                  What the fuck does this even mean. Libertarians have been railing against government excess since before Grover Norquist was in diapers. Even when we had 90% tax rates, tax revenue as % of GDP was no where near what government spending is now, and in fact, tax revenue as % of GDP was lower from 1950-1980 than it was from 1980-2010

                2. rather than massively cut taxes first then claiming there’s a crisis

                  Obama only wants to do away with the bush tax cuts of the rich. This would only bring in 70 billion more a year.

                  the other 1200 billion we are spending in the red is still a crisis.

                  If you want 70 billion more a year then how about we cut 200 billion from the military? Ill even let you keep that extra 130 billion.

                  You are a progressive…which is more important taxing the rich or cutting down our deadly war machine?

                  1. You are a progressive…which is more important taxing the rich or cutting down our deadly war machine?

                    My sides!

              3. Ummm… josh, have you met Tony? There is no rational debate to be had. There is no rational anything where Tony is involved.

    3. I can’t dress you down properly. Everyone knows vocabulary is zero-sum. If we in the top 1% use too many syllables, that leaves fewer for you.

      So I’ll just say fuck off…..

      1. Meant for Ton-ton…

    4. The country spends more on entitlement / welfare on anything else. Education, wars, etc. So yeah, to balance the budget, we kinda have to cut things like medicare.

      But Paul Ryan voted for TARP, bailouts, and various government programs that employ the middle class. He must be some kind of a hero.

      Medicare is freer than free lunch. The elderly at my church and social group don’t hardly spend a dime in their healthcare, even though they don’t speak English and spent most of their lives at home not earning a cent. IF you find a sympathetic doctor who’s willing to overlook some things, you’re set.

      Distressingly, the elderly break the unwritten medicare honor rule that says “Please use medicare only when you’re really sick and you don’t have enough money”.

      But Romney picked Ryan to win the midwest / Wisconsin, not cut medicare. Medicare is safe, and by the time I’m 65, I’ll give Paul Ryan’s grave a mean look and piss on Obama’s grave because medicare ran out of money and I’m paying 8 bucks a gallon.

      1. $8 a gallon? Either you’re turning 65 pretty soon, or your far too optimistic.

    5. “He’s not a libertarian except in the most important way: taking money from poor, old, disabled people, children, teachers, police, scientists, and everyone else not in the 1%,”

      You DO understand that libertarians oppose taking money from people right?

      1. He skipped the section on “voluntaryism” in the syllabus.

  13. If this comment string demonstrates libertarian’s principles and use of logic, it’s no wonder that this movement is going precisely nowhere.

    1. Whereas master logicians like Walter Homple prefer to throw out unsupported generalizations and then slink away.

      1. If libertarianism is going somewhere, tell me where is that somewhere, the plan and program for getting there and an estimated time of arrival.

    2. If principles and logic where the determinants to who wins elections, the liberal and conservative movements would not be nearly as big as they are

      (ex. Tony, and John after the Ryan announcement)

      1. Tony, and John after the Ryan announcement

        Weirdly enough both of them said that we should vote for Obama.

        You got to love it when John bounces off the walls.

        1. I hope that episode is over. I’m worried John and thousands of other conservatives will soon be seen calmly walking to the ocean and then that’s it.

          1. Well, if that gets them off the SS and medicare roles…

      2. You’ve hit on it. The first thing for a budding political party needs to learn is that principles and logic are not, in fact, the big determinants to who wins elections. People vote based on their perceived interests. Figure out what these are and present your ideas in that context.

        The second thing to learn is that you start at the bottom and work your way up. The tea partiers (I know, libertarians are too intelligent to pay attention to them) are doing well with this strategy. At least they’re having some effect (e.g. 2010 election results). They would have not gotten anything at all they wanted by putting up unelectable candidates for President. Libertarians could learn from them.

  14. Hey guys,
    I’ll be in Houston tomorrow following Johnson around. Email me if you want to meet up at some point!

  15. Why did Bill Clinton win? Answer: Ross Perot!!
    (Fast Furious Gun Running, Guilty of Contempt of Congress, his DOJ fought over 100 lawsuits (and counting) to keep Americans ignorant of President Obama’s past) SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ERIC HOLDER?????

    So for anybody who is thinking of not voting because your favorite didn’t get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can’t win, imagine this:

    Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important question regarding the upcoming presidential election: appointments to the Supreme Court.

    “If Mitt wins the nomination, I will enthusiastically support his candidacy. For my friends who have hesitation on that score, I just ask you to keep these things in mind:

    1. Justice Scalia just turned 78

    2. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year

    3. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August

    4. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago. In addition, Justice Ginsburg has Pancreatic Cancer.

    5. Justice Stephens has already said he would retire and is just waiting for Obama to be reelected.

    Whomever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose from 1 to perhaps 5 new member of the Supreme Court, in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.”
    If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, THINK AGAIN.

    After you have stopped gasping, share.

    1. This doesn’t mean shit if he gives us justices like Roberts and Souter.

    2. “If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, THINK AGAIN.”

      I’ve thought about it much more than you have, clearly.

      MITT ROMNEY AND BARACK OBAMA ARE EQUALLY BAD FOR LIBERTARIANS.

      I don’t like indiscriminate war, I don’t like fiscal liberalism, I don’t like the gutting of the Bill of Rights, and I don’t like culture war bullshit. In every one of those categories, Romney and Obama are almost completely indistinguishable.

      Republicans are spinning their wheels until they understand one key point – your party is 100% as dangerous as the other one to the American experiment. Uninformed people most likely don’t realize that, but we’re not uninformed. You can tell, because we’re Libertarians.

  16. Johnson should have been reading von Mises and Rothbard.

  17. “Gary Johnson is not happy that some in the media call Republican vice presidential candidate and Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan a libertarian.”

    A winning tactic for the LP presidential candidate is to attack the VP candidate of the major party which does not hold the presidency?

    “Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee for president, noted that Ryan was a strict social conservative that voted to restrict abortion rights and against marriage equality.”

    Good to know what issues are actually a priority for Johnson and Quinn.

  18. Johnson suggested that his wife read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead so she could get a better understanding of his worldview.

    Actually, he suggested she read these so he could campaign for two years, climb Everest again, learn to kill sharks with his bare hands and no cage, then take a trip to the moon on Virgin Galactic. By then, she might be finished with them.

  19. Paul Ryan isn’t a libertarian?! No!!!

    And a few months ago, neither was Gary Johnson–he was that rival primary candidate who might keep Paul from getting the Republican nod and libertarians worked against him.

    What?

    Reality. It stays crunchy, even in milk.

  20. “I came away from Atlas Shrugged and able to verbalize that the best thing I can do is be the best that I can be, something that I held to before I ever read it,” he said.
    “Atlas Shrugged for me was a validation of my own thoughts. There was no conversion,” he said.
    Johnson suggested that his wife read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead so she could get a better understanding of his worldview.”

    Me, too, Gary, but I was about 25 and a few years into my first “real job” after college when a friend introduced me to Atlas. Those comments pretty much summarize my reactions and how her writing changed my world views.

    And my wife of 22 years (so far) didn’t need my encouragement to read Atlas… she’d read it a long time before we met and was similarly affected.

    Lucky for both of us.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.