Gary Johnson Answers Questions On Ron Paul For Reddit

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson discussed Ron Paul and other topics in his third Reddit appearance today to answer a hodgepodge of questions from users.  

Throughout his campaign Johnson has used the internet to hold freewheeling online town hall forums. He frequently uses Google Hangouts along with other setups to engage supporters and potential voters.

Here's a quick sample of the questions asked that referenced Paul, to whom Johnson is frequently compared. Johnson has made courting Paul supporters a major part of his campaign efforts, even altering his standard stump speech to appeal to key Paul themes like sound money and the Federal Reserve. 

User: What do you see as the main differences between you and Ron Paul? You both obviously share very similar views, but I am curious if there is anything you disagree with him on.

Johnson: Main differences are my business background and the executive experience I've had in my career. We may have differing views on immigration, a woman's right to choose, gay issues, and Israel.

User: Do you feel Ron Paul slighted you in the last debate by not naming you as a hypothetical running mate?

Johnson: I'll leave the answer about Ron Paul to you.

User: How do you feel about Ron Paul running as a Republican?

Johnson: Kudos to Ron Paul. Trying to change the Republican party resulted in a lot of knots on my head. Changing to the Libertarian party, nothing had to be changed.

In one notable exchange, Johnson was asked what he thinks about Paul supporters who plan to write in the Texas congressman's name on Election Day. 

User: Thanks for doing another one of these Governor Johnson.

I am a Ron Paul supporter and I must admit that I am still undecided as to whether I will vote for you in November or write in his name. I realize that you are also a fan of Dr. Paul and want to carry on his message, but there are a few things that concern me.

One is foreign policy. I know you don't want to start a war in Iran, but what about our countless military bases around the world? I have also heard that you support intervening in Uganda to get rid of Joseph Kony. Fans of Ron Paul seem largely opposed to intervention of any kind, even if it has good intentions. It seems that Kony is no longer a huge issue and that most Ugandans believe intervention would do more harm than good…

Johnson: As much as I support Ron Paul I think writing in his name will effectively be meaningless. Count on me to be a military non-interventionist. I think Kony could have been more effectively dealt with by letters of marque and reprisal.

Comments

[Joe M]

I do like that Johnson answers difficult questions, unlike Obama's utterly worthless AMA appearance.

[some guy]

You mean you don't care what's in the White House beer? What are you? Communist?

[deified]

I'm posting here to be towards the top of the thread. I apologize for the dick move but this is the only way I can get this read (and, for once, one of my comments is actually important.)

An anti-Johnson libertarian on reddit with the indisputably awesome screenname LRonPaul2012 has been persistently making the case that everything with the Johnson campaign finances isn't quite kosher.

Now, I'm a pro-Johnson libertarian. I'm even a moderator on the GJ2012 sub-reddit (forum). (And, yes, I know this make a huge dork. What do you want me to do, kill myself?)

Anyway, I wish that GJ's finances weren't so sketchy. I really like the guy, even though he sucks at politics compared to Ron Paul.

But I can't stand to see libertarians getting taken advantage of.

If anyone from the Johnson campaign is reading this, please reassure us that you are spending more on media buys that you promised were the destination of your fundraising. We need to believe our standard-bearer is an honest guy!

It fucking pains me to have to right this.

[Josh M.]

There are new ads on radio stations, other commenters have said they heard them.

[cthorm]

Um, the Johnson campaign is running daily radio ads on KFI in Los Angeles. KFI has the highest ratings of any AM or talk radio station in the country. They aren't running them in the middle of the night earlier, I've heard them repeatedly during the afternoon commute.

[SIV]

Does GayJay talk about how he wants to send a monthly government check to every household in America?

[some guy]

I don't know. But if he does, he probably doesn't try to mislead people by leaving out important details. Lies of omission and all that...

[Faceh]

You're referring to his support for the FairTax, yes?

If so, you're definitely misrepresenting what he 'believes.'

[Brandybuck]

Oh get over it! As much as I personally find the Fair(r)Tax(tm) revolting, it's intention is to be a revenue neutral tax. Even if you send out a "prebate" to every household, you still end up having the same tax burden. Couple that with Gary Johnson's 43% overall spending cut, and it will be a net positive for everyone.

And of course, the president doesn't have the power to snap his fingers and change the tax code. Any sort of tax restructuring still has to make it through congress. Given the extreme remote odds of Gary Johnson wining the election, I don't think you're going to have to endure the hardship of families receiving a prebate.

On the other hand, starting a dialog about changing the our tax system is a Good Thing. I would rather have a flat tax on incomes, but no candidate out there is talking about that. Not Obama, not Romney, not Stein, not that even that free puppies guy. Gary Johnson is the only candidate talking about radically reforming our tax system and slashing spending almost in half.

On the remote chance he does get elected, rest assured he WOULD sign a national sales tax without a prebate if it came across his desk. But it's not the taxes that matter, it's the spending. Cut the spending and the taxes will follow. Lets cut the spending before we start worrying about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Calidissident]

I would prefer a consumption tax, but I'm not really sure if I'd like one given current spending levels and how complicated they'd make it. In Libertopia, I'd like to see government funded as voluntarily as possible (user fees, lotteries, etc), and then a low, non-protective tariff, and the rest excise and/or consumption tax

[Francisco d Anconia]

I prefer a flat fee for every man, woman and child.

A true fair tax.

[SIV]

I'm opposed to a broad federal consumption tax of any sort, particularly before repeal of the 16th Amendment.

GayJay ain't gonna get elected. I don't like the idea of libertarians, and the Libertarian Party, supporting the gimmicky "fair tax" which is nothing but a stalking horse for a VAT.

[Cytotoxic]

Opposing a consumption tax is silly. We have both in Canada and thank goodness we didn't try to eliminate income tax beforehand. If you don't VAT then you'll just get a higher income tax. Consumption tax is just rational.

[SIV]

We have both in Canada

Fuck Canada

We should invade and steal your strategic maple syrup reserve, baby harp seal furs, tar sands, and beaver pelts.

[Ryan60657]

and hockey pucks.

[Proprietist]

I'm opposed to just about any consumption tax as well (I'm a land value tax guy), but repeal of the 16th Amendment is an integral part of the FairTax plan. And the prebate is not a welfare check - it is a means to offset the burden of the tax for the poor, because consumption taxes are inherently regressive.

The problem with the FairTax is that your average poor person is likely in debt, meaning tax rebate amounts will be based upon money promised that hasn't been made yet.

[AlmightyJB]

GayJay?

Well you can call me Gay or you can call me Jay, or you can call me GayJay, but you doesn't have to call me Johnson.

[Francisco d Anconia]

+1 Natural Light

[Almanian's Evil Twin]

Respeck for anyone referencing "letters of marque" in a serious manner.

*fist bump*

Good job, Johnson.

[Killazontherun]

Absolutely right. The constitutional method no one even tries, and no doubt it would work. If say, a terrorist, let's just give him a common Islamist name, Rosie O'Donnell blew up an orphanage, with nothing more than an order from congress in my pocket and a garrote in hand, I would have that bitch's head knocking down pins in the White House bowling alley overnight.

You better stay the fuck away from orphanages, Rosie.

[yonemoto]

No way. Letters of Marque against Kony would be stupid. He isn't a non-state actor that threatens the US. A letter of Marque against OBL, however, would have gotten him taken off the map far faster. Imagine if BlackwaterXe instead of driving fucking trucks in Iraq for 100,000 a driver a month, bid for a 250M USD contract (in front of a closed-but-recorded session of the house) to eliminate OBL.

[ant1sthenes]

Why bid for a contract? First team to score wins.

[Almanian's Evil Twin]

The Somalis get to be skins

[yonemoto]

well, they did that. They put a bounty on his head, and it didn't work. I think you kind of need to make it explicit, look, we got your back and will protect you from Paki courts if you do X, Y, Z, but not Q, R, S.

[Cytotoxic]

BEST. REALITY. TV SHOW. EVER.

[Proprietist]

Honestly, isn't Letters of Marque and Reprisal kind of similar to the Salman Rushdie fatwa?

[Cytotoxic]

It's pretty funny listening to guys who were on about due process for Taliban and murder drone victims wave the letter of marque around like an amulet that dispels all the KILLING BROWN BABIES rhetoric. Hey, if outsourcing is what it takes to stuff up all that wet emotionalism AND it saves money then it works for me.

[Killazontherun]

Ancap, not a strict libertarian. My attitude towards violence is a bit more thuggish than the non aggression principle of strict libertarians. What I share with them is an abhorrence for senseless violence. Given the state is an invalid institution, the vast majority of violence it commits daily is senseless with few justifiable cases that are used to validate its network of terror turned loose upon the average person within its borders for the purpose of stealing our wealth.

Yes. It is somewhat of a compromise in principle to accept a letter of marque from the state; however, it is for the greater good of keeping the power of the state in check. If it becomes an accepted practice it would then stand to reason that we can do away with the nation's standing armies.

[Fist of Etiquette]

We may have differing views on immigration, a woman's right to choose, gay issues, and Israel.

GOVERNOR JOHNSON ISN'T SURE OF HIS OWN STANCES???

It definitely would be nice to hear the other two candidate answering questions similarly straightforward. But then, either of them has an actual chance at winning and an accidentally honest answer could be devastating.

[Joe M]

That makes me re-astonished that anyone takes either of those two clowns seriously.

[Episiarch]

Look, they're the "serious" candidates. You know, seriously atrocious but seriously on a TEAM.

Fuck, partisans are scum.

[deified]

The only problem is that the ticket is upside down.

Jim Gray should be the Prezzy-date. He comes off as significantly smarter than GJ and therefore would be a better ambassador/educator for liberty.

I mean, I like the handyman-entrepreneur - mountainclimber - handglider-Governor narrative as much as the next guy, but Gay Jay just isn't that awesome at answering questions.

And since an LPer isn't about to get elected Pres-hole anytime soon, we should at least be able to tell our own story well.

Oy.

[Father Jack]

Methinks you're too used to the "answering" done by the Usual Suspects.... Drink! Feck! Arse! Girls!

[yonemoto]

I think he meant that he doesn't know what RP's stances are on these issues, or it's just an affected way of warning RP diehards that they are not one and the same.

[Proprietist]

Or maybe there is some overlap and some marked differences on various issues. Ron Paul hasn't been entirely consistent on, say, immigration.

[Tman]

Call me lazy because I haven't looked in to this further, but what exactly is a "military non-interventionist"?

I'm assuming it means have a strong military but don't intervene across the globe?

Yes? No?

[Almanian's Evil Twin]

Means he doesn't fuck soldiers wives.

At least while they're deployed overseas.

[Tman]

Well...that's not going to fit on a bumper sticker very well now is it.

[A Serious Man]

Johnson 2012: END PRIMAE NOCTIS

[Tman]

I stand corrected.

[AlmightyJB]

SM got latin game.

[Cytotoxic]

+1

[Brandybuck]

It's the opposite of a military interventionist. Using the term "non-military interventionist" can be confusing, as could be confused as meaning he wants to intervene in non-military ways.

[Tman]

So now I'm even more confused. Thanks a lot BB.

[pmains]

It means you want to appease our enemies, who are all exactly like Hitler prior to the invasion of Poland. Our enemies include, but are not limited to

- those who attack us
- those who attack others
- those who say they may attack us
- those who say they may attack others
- those whom we think may want to attack us
- those whom we think may want to attack others
- those who are acquiring nuclear weapons
- those who are engaged in a civil war somewhere
- those with shifty eyes

In other words, Gary Johnson is a communist, and we'd all be speaking Chinese with 5 weeks if he became president.

[Father Jack]

Thanks for the joke, pmains! I laughed until I pissed myself! Feck! Drink! Arse! Girls!

[pmains]

I don't know that it means we have a strong military. IMO it would be good to have a strong military, but the term just means we avoid intervening militarily all around the world. E.g., we don't go into Libya because it's none of our business. It would also mean staying out of Uganda, which Johnson favors. I wouldn't count him as a non-interventionist. Perhaps less interventionist than others, though.

[Tman]

Does it mean pulling out of South Korea?

Japan?

Bosnia?

No more carrier groups in the Middle east? No more defending key maritime areas around the world, including strategic chokepoints?

No more troops in Europe keeping check on Russian adventurism?

Again, I'm not claiming this would be a bad thing necessarily (nor am I claiming it would be a good thing either), but I'd like some more specifics as to what the point of being a "military non-interventionist".

[pmains]

Yes to all of that.

The only one I'm a little shaky on would be maritime areas. If you have pirates attacking American ships, I could see an attack on said pirates being construed as non-interventionist.

Now, Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA bin Laden unit and endorser of Ron Paul, probably wouldn't favor that. He was concerned that bailing out Americans overseas who get into trouble would mean intervening everywhere.

So, let's say the Coca Cola Company or the United Fruit Company are doing business down in Latin America. Michael Scheuer, a non-interventionist, would say, "they took that risk by doing business in a Banana Republic. It's not the job of the US Marines to provide the protection that private firms should have secured prior to setting up shop."

I'm not sure I agree 100% with that. Nevertheless, there are a number of Scheuer interviews and debates on Youtube if you're interested.

[Tman]

So yes to bailing on Japan and South Korea? Not sure that would be a good idea.

I think most people aren't aware of how much security the US provides globally, and those who believe we intervene too much around the world can be right about certain areas but wrong about others. As you mentioned, Naval protection is essential for unencumbered fair trade, and our Navy is currently carrying the biggest part of that workload.

Beyond the boilerplate campaign slogans I'd like to see specifics, as in, where are "intervening" now that would be ok, and which ones are not?

I get turned off by blanket statements.

[pmains]

No. No to bailing out Japan and South Korea.

In an NI world, we would not have deployed 20,000 troops to Haiti.
We would not have sent the Marines to Uganda.
We wouldn't have a military presence in Afghanistan at this time.
We wouldn't be attaching sticky bombs to the cars of Iranian scientists (not that it was us, but if it was ...).
No military bases in Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc.

Michael Scheuer has a number of books on foreign policy as well. "Imperial Hubris" and "Marching Toward Hell" come to mind.

[Tman]

So basically no to everything except maritime protection, is that what you're saying?

[pmains]

Basically. And even then, it's like asking, "what is the conservative take on foreign policy" or "what is the liberal take?" Well, it depends on who you're asking.

In Ron Paul's book, "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" he mentions that letters of Marque and Reprisal are the appropriate mechanisms to deal with piracy.

[yonemoto]

The Navy is the appropriate mechanism to deal with most piracy (small time piracy on defined sea lanes). You cannot have congress issue a letter of marque for each little small pirate outfit that decides to attack a ship. Letters of marque are appropriate when a big time individual pirate or organized pirate group has committed multiple serious offenses and is worth targetting for elimination. Letters of reprisal are appropriate in response to a single incident where a non-state actor has committed a serious offense to the life or liberty of american citizens. Both Letters of Marque and Letters of Reprisal should have specific rules of engagement (for which the mercenaries get diplomatic cover); anything beyond those rules of engagement aren't specifically prohibited, but they're on their own. Sometimes, though, you need a consistent, organized force to keep the peace in international waters, and that's what the Navy should be for.

[pmains]

Now that I read the section in question more fully (pages 150-151), Paul is comparing the 9/11 attacks to piracy. "Today, we have a new type of piracy in the high sky over our country." I couldn't find anything that addressed TMan's maritime security question directly, I guess.

[ant1sthenes]

So that's why the U.S. went so hard after Kim Dotcom.

[MP]

I simply don't care if North Korea takes possession of South Korea. I don't. It's not my problem. Sure, there will be major economic fallout. Sure there will be human rights violations galore.

IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM.

The US would've survived even if the Reds had taken over Vietnam. Afghanistan. All of South America. The ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD. The US would've survived just fine.

It's a bullshit belief that we have some sort of "moral duty" to help other people based on our own perception of their need for help.

FUCK THAT. IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM.

[Overt]

You really think that if Canada and Mexico were communist puppet states, the US would have survived just fine? Really?

[AlmightyJB]

"Does it mean pulling out of South Korea?"

I hate pulling out.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Complaining about bases abroad is popular, but many of our bases abroad (esp naval bases and certain USAF bases) are perfectly in keeping with a restrained foreign policy.

It is perfectly acceptable to have bases in allied countries to protect our holdings in the Pacific, for example.

At any rate, foreign bases are far less of a money sink and liability than a whole raft of domestic bases.

[Father Jack]

Seems like a lot of people have "defending oneself" and "non-interventionism" confused....

Drink! Feck! Arse! Girls!

[Calidissident]

What does Johnson mean when he says he has a different views on Israel than Paul? Anyone care to explain how their positions differ?

[Lord Peter Wimsey]

I'm not sure, but it may not amount to a differing policy (non intervention), but a different view of the situation. Ron Paul said on a radio program that Hamas had just as much right to offensive weaponry as Israel. He also claimed Gaza was being blockaded by Israel.

Johnson's view may be that while the U.S. should stay out of that mess, he doesn't regard Hamas and Israel as the same, or equal in any terms. This would be a moral judgement. As to the claims of blockade Johnson is smart enough to know that the world (led by the U.S.) forced the Oslo Accords on Israel. Accords which allow Israel to search incoming ships for offensive weaponry.

Interesting tidbit: Last two elections I listened to Israeli Settler radio over the internet. They took a poll on who should win the pres election. Overwhelming winner? Ron Paul. Why? Because he says the U.S. should cut out aid to Israel. In other words: take your money and get the fuck out!

[Ken Shultz]

I'm so sick of effing Ron Paul.

All you Paultards out there, looking for your next leader? Just so you know, libertarianism is whole lot bigger than Ron effing Paul.

Jesus, you'd think the question was whether Gary Johnson was gonna get the Ron Paul vote--rather than whether Johnson's gonna get broad enough support to play spoiler.

So, Memo to Ron Paul supporters: Gary Johnson isn't running against Ron Paul. He's really running against Romney. And every moment he squanders talking about Ron Paul is another moment wasted--not talking about why he's a better rebuke to Obama than Romney.

[Cavpitalist]

Thank you. Sweet Jesus, thank you.

[Calidissident]

I think it's just a matter of a small, but vocal minority making their presence seem larger than it actually is. What I mean by this is that I guarantee you more people who voted for Ron Paul will vote for Mitt Romney than will write in Ron Paul or not vote. If you look at polls from the primaries, a good chunk of Paul's support was more or less mainstream Republicans, or libertarian-leaning Republicans, who thought Paul was the best option, but still planned on voting for the Republican nominee. The hardcore base that's considering writing in really isn't that big. And a lot of people who did vote for Ron Paul (such as myself and possibly a majority of this board) plan on voting for Gary Johnson.

I understand your sentiment, and agree with it to an extent, but I don't get how you're sick of hearing about Ron Paul but apparently can handle hearing about Mitt Romney (you do seem to be sick of Obama, which I'll give you credit for, but you've been passive-aggressively praising Romney for a while on these boards)

[Ken Shultz]

I don't get how you're sick of hearing about Ron Paul but apparently can handle hearing about Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is on the ballot for president.

Ron Paul is not.

See the difference?

[John C. Randolph]

Willard Romney is utterly devoid of personal integrity.

Ron Paul is not.

See the difference?

-jcr

[Ken Shultz]

At least he's relevant!

Why is Gary Johnson wasting his time talking about something that doesn't matter to 95% of the voters out there?

If he's running against Romney, and thinks Romney's lack of personal integrity is a good reason to vote for himself instead of Romney? then that's something to talk about...

Johnson should spend about as much time talking about Ron Paul as he does talking about Ayn Rand--'cause she's not on the ballot either!

Jesus Christ, if ever there were a time when it's okay NOT to talk about Ron effin' Paul, why wouldn't it be two weeks before an election--when Ron Paul's not even on the ballot?

I was really hopin' Gary Johnson would turn out to be a legitimate face for libertarianism to average Americans--and that ain't gonna happen if he's wastin' his time courting the Paul vote. He needs a lot more than the Paul vote if he's gonna make the kind of showing he says he wants--and that ain't gonna happen so long as he's preachin' to the Paultard choir.

What's he afraid of, that all the Paultards are all gonna go vote for Romney?

[Tulpa Doom]

Johnson is relevant? You're making my ribs hurt with laughter.

[Ken Shultz]

Johnson's on the ballot!

What, do you gotta be hit over the head with something before it sinks in?

Yes, being on the ballot makes Johnson relevant.

Not being on the ballot means--Ron Paul? not so relevant.

Why is someone who IS on the ballot wasting his time, here? He should be out there putting libertarianism front and center in average Americans' minds--not pandering to Paultards!

Badnarik did better than this.

[Tulpa Doom]

It takes more than being on the ballot to be relevant.

After Johnson gets less than 1% of the vote on 11/6, he'll be quickly forgotten. He never built anything and never inspired a movement. Ron Paul not so much. Your attempt to put RP in the dustbin of history in favor of a nullity is misguided.

[John C. Randolph]

If you think you're going to gain votes for Johnson by making an ass of yourself, you're even stupider than I had first surmised.

-jcr

[Calidissident]

Who cares? Does being on the ballot make Mitt Romney any less detestable and does not being on the ballot make Ron Paul more detestable? JCR's point below seems a lot more important to determining how much I want to hear about someone

[Robert]

Seems radical libertarian activists -- or maybe radicals of any stripe -- who may have good business sense go all goofy when it comes to applying those principles to political choice, which is a form of collective choice.

Suppose you're a subcontractor, not a direct contractor, trying to do some work on a major contract being put out for bid. There's a small number of businesses that have a realistic shot at getting that contract. Are you going to expend effort trying to sell some other business to subcontract with you, to get them to bid hopelessly on the major contract, just because you can do much better business with them than you could with one of the realistic bidders on the major contract? Why would you waste your time trying to do a better business on a job that won't materialize, as opposed to doing worse business, but still some business, on a job that might come thru?

[John C. Randolph]

Thank goodness you're here, stupid analogy man!

-jcr

[Robert]

You think you've got a better way than my analogy to illustrate the difference between how radical libertarian activists tend to act re politics and how they act about business or any other walk of life?

[Calidissident]

My vote will never have any effect on who wins. So I'm going to vote for who I think would be the best candidate. In your example, I could realistically affect the outcome. In an election, I can't. Not to mention, I have the future to think about, and a strong showing by GJ would do a lot more for the future of libertarianism than electing Mitt Romney

[Robert]

If you don't think you can have an effect on world affairs, why do you write here?

[SIV]

You are correct that the "Ron Paul vote" will mostly go for Romney. The LP will get the "usual vote" and the hardcore Paultards will split 5 ways with "not-voting" edging out write-ins, Obama, Romney, and Johnson.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Repost from AM links:

This should get your blood pressure up. Sorry if it's already been covered, I haven't been keeping up.

TIME FOR RON PAUL FANS TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION

There is no more time for games, no room for hurt feelings. Ron Paul fans, you need to choose, because not voting for Romney is a vote for Obama. It's that simple. And you could make the difference.

They treat us like shit and then expect us to fall in line. Whoda saw that comin'?

Anyway, here is the appropriate response:

Breitbart Writer Begs Libertarians To Vote Romney ? Sorry, It Ain't Going To Work

[Tulpa Doom]

And now Johnson is doing the selfsame thing...but you're going to let him get away with it.

[Calidissident]

Except that Gary Johnson supports pretty similar policies to Ron Paul and would push for substantial changes in a libertarian direction on spending, debt, taxes, regulations, war on drugs, protecting civil liberties, war and adventurism abroad, etc etc. The same cannot be said about Mitt Romney. See the difference?

[Robert]

But Mitt Romney at least offers the prospect of actually being elected, which is something neither of the others have a chance at.

[Ken Shultz]

But Mitt Romney at least offers the prospect of actually being elected, which is something neither of the others have a chance at.

I heard Mitt Romney on the radio today bashing free trade!

Now there's an opportunity for Johnson. Go pound on Romney for being against free trade with China! I mean, Jeez, the guy you're really in competition is over there bashing free trade--and he's off somewhere playing footsie with Ron Paul people, why?

[Robert]

But Dr. Paul opposed free[r] trade agreements, which are the way we've primarily gotten freer trade in recent times. Ron Paul comes from that libertarian or quasi-libertarian strain that puts a lot of stock in national (and state) sovereignty, which I don't.

[Tulpa Doom]

I don't see what opposition to NAFTA etc has to do with national sovereignty (assuming one doesn't believe the conspiracy theories).

[entropy]

Because they're the only way he's going to get his 6% dude.

[Calidissident]

Robert, your vote's not going to affect the election. Given that fact, the only logical thing to do if you vote is to vote for the candidate you think would be the best. If enough people were willing to give Johnson a chance and vote for him, he'd win. By your logic, everyone in a non-swing state should just vote for the presumptive winner.

[entropy]

I'll make one argument for Mitt Romney, as to why he's no where near as dangerous as Obama.

Divided government is better than single party rule.

I'm not talking about the congressional dickwads, I mean the 4th estate media.

Romney will never be the Dear Leader. They won't hide atrocities for Romney nor coordinate messaging and pre-approve all his questions, nor try to get random film-makers killed by jihadis just to cover for him. Hell even half the republicans hate him, just less than Obama. He is by that nature much more restrained.

Obama can get away with practically anything. If he was a republican he'd be impeached already.

[Robert]

Unfortunately the division between the 4th estate and either the legislative or executive branch works out bad. When Congress y the president tried brinksmanship ("shutting down" fedgov) in budget negotiations in the 1980s y 1990s, the media blamed the Republicans whether they were in the White House or Congress, and enough people believed them that the compromise favored the Democrats, resulting in more spending each time that happened.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Huh?

How so?

[Francisco d Anconia]

That was for TD

[Robert]

a good chunk of Paul's support was more or less mainstream Republicans, or libertarian-leaning Republicans, who thought Paul was the best option, but still planned on voting for the Republican nominee.

And that was the chief value of the Paul campaign.

Trying to turn more people more libertarian, and trying to gain influence for libertarians, are two different efforts. They overlap somewhat, but not as much as many of you probably think.

In politics, you need the cooperation of people who mostly disagree with you. Largely you need to get that cooperation by fooling them, while most of them are trying to fool you. As in all bargaining, the way you get more out of others is by convincing them they'll get more out of you. But still, both sides will get ahead to at least some degree by cooperating.

[John C. Randolph]

All you Paultards out there, looking for your next leader?

You stupid fuck.

Ron Paul isn't anyone's leader. I supported his campaign because I've had it up to my eyeballs with leaders.

As for Gary Johnson, he blew it when he decided to take tax money for his campaign. He's not as bad as Bob Barr, but he's got a ways to go before I'll trust him.

-jcr

[Ken Shultz]

Has Ron Paul endorsed Gary Johnson?

Why not?

Does it have anything to do with trying to gain Rand Paul some credibility within the Republican Party establishment as someone that can be trusted?

I think it does.

I think Ron Paul is afraid that he'll make Rand Paul guilty by association if he doesn't tow the Republican establishment line. ...and you know what else?

I don't care!

I've heard enough about Ron Paul and his cult of personality already.

We've got a big election in two months, and it doesn't have anything to do with Ron Paul. He's not on the ballot.

Romney is.

Johnson is.

Ron Paul? Not so much.

[Francisco d Anconia]

IMO, RP made a deal with Romney not to endorse GJ in order to get his video played at the convention.

And RP is on the ballot. That little line on the ballot marked OTHER ________________________.

[Tulpa Doom]

Vote Johnson: he's the least of three evils!

[Robert]

Maybe it also has something to do with the previous LP nominee's having blown off Dr. Paul in 2008.

[Tulpa Doom]

All you Paultards out there, looking for your next leader?

I don't think you understand the "Paultards" very well, Ken. They're not looking for a leader, which is kind of the point.

whether Johnson's gonna get broad enough support to play spoiler

So a vote for Johnson *is* a vote for Obama? Thanks for confirming.

[Calidissident]

No Tulpa a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson. It's not a vote for Obama any more than it's a vote for Romney. Nobody is entitled to a specific person's vote

[Tulpa Doom]

If you're voting for him to play spoiler, you're (explicitly) helping Obama win.

A vote for Obama would actually be doubly as bad from a game theoretic perspective.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Perhaps a vote for GJ is a vote against both Romney and Obama?

[Ken Shultz]

If I vote, the only thing I'll want to do with it is rebuke Obama as harshly as I can with my little vote...

And right now, Johnson isn't make a good case to me that voting for him is the best way I can do that.

Hell, I can rebuke the whole process by not voting for any of them, and right now, that's looking a lot better than voting for Johnson from where I'm standing.

But I can still be persuaded.

[Francisco d Anconia]

The Republicans need to know they can't take the libertarian vote for granted. They need to accommodate me or they won't get my vote.

However, I despise Obama and another four years of this pig will truly spell doom for this nation.

So here is what I propose. If you live in a swing state, by all means, vote for the lesser of two evils. If, like me, you live in a state that is certain to either go Obama, or go Romney, vote your libertarian conscience. Paul or Johnson, makes no difference. Either way you vote for a libertarian.

[Ken Shultz]

Makes a lot of sense--if I'm going to vote.

[Francisco d Anconia]

I really don't understand those who don't vote and are proud of it. There seem to be a lot of them here at Reason. I suspect they are mostly the anarchists.

Seems to me, that even though you may not elect a candidate, a vote for your conscience at least has the benefit of showing the two established parties what is required to gain your vote. Not voting accomplishes nothing.

IMHO.

[nicole]

As a resident anarchist, I can give at least my own perspective.

For the most part, I see voting as an act of aggression. There are certain circumstances in which this is not the case, and it can be viewed as an act of defense, for example, in a referendum on a specific issue that would be liberty-limiting. I would vote in such a circumstance and consider it an act of self-defense.

I live in IL, so I'm also considering voting this year (for Johnson), because with his chance of winning the state at absolutely nil, my act can't really affect anyone else. It can only bolster Johnson's tiny numbers, in the hopes of making him slightly more media-relevant. (I have no illusions about the efficacy of this.)

The problem is ultimately that there isn't a way for me to "vote my conscience." Staying home is, in fact, "voting my conscience," but it is never read that way--it is read as apathy, rather than an active rejection of the system.

I have also voted in primaries from time to time, since they are votes that influence private entities, and not an attempt to impose a set of policies on the public. (And I have no problem fucking with those private entities. Fun fact: I was the absolute first person at my polling place this spring who voted in the Republican primary. They had no idea where the R ballots even were.)

That said, if a non-anarchist is going to vote, I would certainly prefer they vote third-party/according to their conscience.

[Tulpa Doom]

I see voting as an act of aggression.

I don't get that perspective, sorry. The aggression committed by an out of control govt is always impending regardless of whether anyone votes. Voting at least allows one to bound or even restrain that aggression.

If the people who believe in liberty refuse to vote, or vote only for third party candidates, all the more reason for those who seek votes to ignore liberty.

[nicole]

Voting at least allows one to bound or even restrain that aggression.

Sometimes, sometimes. When I feel that is clearly the case, I am willing to vote (as in the circumstance I mentioned). But in your average Coke/Pepsi election...not so much. If I thought that voting actually did bound or restrain the aggression of the government, it would be a different story. When in my lifetime has that been the case (in terms of presidential elections)?

But you have to start here from the principles of anarchy. I don't believe I have any more right to impose my will on others than they do to impose their will on me. I know, of course that I will lose; that I will be the one imposed upon.

We can call this letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. But if you really believe, as I do, that democracy is fundamentally illegitimate, participating in it under most circumstances feels rather hypocritical.

[Tulpa Doom]

More succinctly:

If those who favor liberty don't vote, those who are voted for won't favor liberty.

[Ken Shultz]

I really don't understand those who don't vote and are proud of it.

They use our participation in the process to legitimize their authority to do all sorts of terrible things to us.

Why does Obama claim to have the authority to make choices for us about our healthcare?

The answer is that he claims to have the right to make those choices for us because he won a legitimate election, fair and square. Our participation in the process that legitimizes presidents like Barack Obama--necessarily contributes to their legitimacy.

When I refuse to vote, I refuse to contribute to the legitimacy of a president like Barack Obama.

There is an argument I've come to consider for voting though, and it's based on the idea that the ability to vote isn't good becasue voting makes sure the people get what they want. Voting is good becasue it lets the people get rid of an incumbent. There may be a different dynamic at work when you're talking about an incumbent like Obama--rather than when it was Obama vs. McCain.

Other than that, refusing to vote is simply refusing to contribute to the problem. If Obama and company are going to build a gallows to hang me with, I'm not gonna carry their wood and nails for them. And our participation in the process that elects them is what gives them the authority, in most people's minds, to hang people.

[Ken Shultz]

Libertopia isn't gonna happen because we vote libertarian politicians into office. If it ever happens, it'll happen becasue so many people stopped doing things to legitimize the politicians, that the politicians will lose their legitimacy and their authority.

Incumbents still win a high percentage of the time. The politicians aren't afraid of who you're gonna vote for--they're worst fear is that you won't vote...

Why, not voting is unpatriotic! You're undermining fake democracy! How dare you? You bastard!

[Robert]

Incumbents still win a high percentage of the time. The politicians aren't afraid of who you're gonna vote for--they're worst fear is that you won't vote.

That's completely wrong. Politicians may hope for a greater or lesser turnout because that influences who wins. Incumbents especially want a low turnout, because high turnouts disfavor them. Much campaign advertising is aimed at dissuading votes for an opponent, without any hope that the dissuaded voter will vote for anybody.

[Robert]

And what if, to accommodate you, they need to discommode 10 times as many other voters?

[Francisco d Anconia]

How so?

[entropy]

Yeah I'm in IL so I'm not voting at all.

If I was in OH, I'd be voting for Mittens.

[Calidissident]

And I'll once again throw in my opinion on how I cannot at all understand the people who would base their vote on what state they live in. Whether you live in California or Ohio, your vote has the exact same odds of influencing the outcome of the election. Zero. If you vote, the only logical thing to do is vote for who you think would be the best president

[entropy]

That's not remotely true. A voter in Ohio has significantly more chance of effecting the outcome than a voter in California.

Enlarge that group to a few hundred voters, or a measly few thousand voters, and the odds of effecting elections in swing states rises dramatically.

In California a few thousand voters won't do crap, tens of thousands won't do crap, even a million isn't going to change the outcome.

[Calidissident]

No entropy it is true. In Ohio, the odds of your vote affecting the outcome is zero. The election will not be decided by one vote. It's a virtual mathematical impossibility. Even if it did come down to that, the courts would decide, because there would be a recount and various slightly different totals would be counted. And the rest of your post only adds to my point. What difference does it make whether I'd need 10,000 other people or 5 million other people to join me to swing the results? In either case, there's a mass of other people that I can't control determining the results

[John C. Randolph]

If I vote, the only thing I'll want to do with it is rebuke Obama as harshly as I can with my little vote...

Yeah, vote for the OTHER Ruling Party douchebag! That'll show 'em!

-jcr

[Ken Shultz]

"If I vote...", was kinda crucial there, wasn't it.

Libertarianism to me means that politicians aren't the solution to our problems.

Ron Paul's a politician, right?

So he's not the solution to our problems either. How could I go around telling people that politicians aren't the solution to our problems and then tell them whom they should vote for, out of the other side of my mouth?!

...and even if Ron Paul, the politician, were somehow the solution to our problems, why would that matter to me now--since he isn't on the ballot?

What exactly does being a Ron Paul supporter mean right now anyway--now that Ron Paul's not on the ballot? And what should we call people who support a politician--that isn't even running for office?

[John C. Randolph]

What exactly does being a Ron Paul supporter mean right now anyway

It means I have a clear conscience. I'm done with settling.

-jcr

[Calidissident]

Except that's not why I (or almost anyone) is voting for him

[Fatty Bolger]

I think it's high time for Gary Johnson to tell the American people where he stands on the great issues of the day! He can start with his position on the NFL replacement refs issue.

[John C. Randolph]

Speaking of Reddit, until this morning I had an account there that was two years old, with over 100K of karma. They banned links to Reason.com, so I deleted the account. Turns out that the pervasive left-wing retardation in the "politics" reddit extends to the site's management.

So, if anyone has another news aggregation site to recommend, I'm shopping for one.

-jcr

[BakedPenguin]

Well, reason would probably like it if you went here.

[TeamBarstool]

They banned links to Reason.com

Can you really blame them for quarantining the squirrels?

[Auric Demonocles]

This is seriously making me reconsider my account on reddit, even though I've never attempted to link a Reason article there.

[Robert]

a woman's right to choose, gay issues

I'm really put off by those labels. Why not "abortions" and something more specific than "gay issues"? I'm not even sure what specific "gay issues" he differs with Dr. Paul on.

BTW, in the zombies ad as well as the other one, he sounds just like Mathew Lesko.

[Tulpa Doom]

GJ is showing his true colors. He belittles Ron Paul's positions again and again and then expects to reap what Paul sowed. He ran a complete nonentity of a campaign in the primary and now can do little but ride RP's coattails.

It is beyond ironic to see him telling people not to "waste their vote" on a different candidate who has no chance at winning. If he were looking to play spoiler (despicable enough) he wouldn't give a shit if someone voted for Ron Paul in the election; it's another vote not for Romney.

[Calidissident]

How is it more despicable to try and play spoiler? A Mitt Romney supporter calling another candidate despicable is a little rich. And don't act as if Romney and Republicans haven't been trying to beg Paul supporters into voting for him after completely dismissing and belittling his views

[Tulpa Doom]

Romney is despicable. I've made peace with that. Doesn't change the landscape.

[Robert]

Except that although they may have dismissed and belittled him, they did not completely dismiss or belittle his views -- some of them, yes, but certainly not completely. Mainstreaam Republican backers tend to think and say Ron Paul would be great were it not for a foreign affairs naivete that completely disqualifies him.

[Calidissident]

And by naivete, you mean not being a naive idiot who thinks the government suddenly becomes moral and efficient when operating abroad

[Robert]

No, the naivete that says all ill feeling is caused by one's own gov't rather than any other entity.

[Robert]

Because LP is just as (actually much more IMO) "Team" oriented as Teams Blue y Red, it's just that they have far fewer marbles to play with.

[Tulpa Doom]

It's hilarious to see Gary Johnson begging people not to throw their vote away on another candidate.

[Calidissident]

Either every vote is wasted or no vote is wasted. Your vote doesn't count more if you vote for the winner, and it's never going to decide the winner.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

I can't believe I am writing the following sentence, but...

I agree with the Juggalo's and the ICP here. From what I have seen, and from what I have read, and I get gang intel reports etc. constantly from our gang unit that come from various regions, and state, federal task forces etc.

Juggalos are not (imo) a gang, not a "gang" as understood when using the criminal gang terminology that the FBI, NCIC, and we (local law enforcement agencies) use.

Yes, some Juggalos commit crime, etc. just like people in any other group.

Here's a page from the NIJ that gives some definitions.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crim.....itions.htm

sorry, but Juggalos don't fit. These are not crips, bloods, BGD, etc.

They are JUGGALOS.

http://www.komonews.com/news/e.....39751.html

[Tulpa Doom]

One day, any group outside of govt control will be considered a gang.

[Robert]

Max Stirner predicted that.

[Tulpa Doom]

I believe it.

Look at how the govt labels any instance of a non-cop waving a gun around threateningly in a public place -- even if only one person is actually shot -- an "act of domestic terrorism". Look at all the instances of personal threats to people, which used to be considered a personal crime of aggravated harassment, which are now prosecuted as "making terroristic threats".

Terrorism originally referred to a very specific tactic was used against democracies, to spread irrational fear among the populace in order to extract concessions from their government. Then the label was extended to attacks against US military troops, which would have previously been described as acts of war. Now, any time someone makes a threat it's terrorism....with all the restrictions of liberty that that word is employed to justify.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

sen moynihan coined the term "defining deviancy down" where in an increasingly lawless environment (think late 70's into 80's as a good example of a timeframe where this occurred), that serious crimes weren't viewed as seriously and minor crimes were viewed as mere nuisances and if you thought otherwise, you were just some sort of authoritarian fool.

defining deviancy down was a very bad idea, and getting over that attitude and getting "tough on crime" as corny as that sounds WORKED among other factors to protect people from criminals and to hold criminals accountable

here, we see the opposite. "defining deviancy up". by lumping a group of mostly harmless people, who are into having a good time, really bad music and faygo soda (whatever) into the same set as actual CRIMINAL gangs they define deviancy up.

exactly like your example of terroristic threats.

yes, under some penal codes (like when i worked in hawaii), one neighbor threatening to kill another neighbor "if you don't cut back these damn trees that are hanging into my yard" would be Terroristic Threatening I

http://www.lawserver.com/law/s.....es_707-715

what was once (and in many states IS viewed as ) "harassment" is now

oh noes!!!!

TERRORISTIC THREATENING

hide the kids, maybel

[Robert]

Wow, I never thought of that cx, and I'm not even selling shoes or privacy. (I'm selling libertarian-endorsed bubble bath until I next update my link here.) Thanks, Dunphy, you must be one of the real thinkers here.

[TinkRow]

Dude makews no sense at all man, Wow.

http://www.PrivacyCrew.tk

[0x90]

NOTICE: I'm coming through your neighborhood next month, and painting all the houses either red or blue. Understand: you have a voice here -- vote your choice next Tuesday. Don't be a sucker and let your neighbors make this important decision for you. And remember: a write-in is a vote for red. Or blue. Depending who you ask.