Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson: America Gets to Know the Libertarian Candidate's Policy, and Family

Kill NSA and IRS; maybe NAFTA was a bad idea? And driven by asking whether any government action will really "make things better."

|

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson's media campaign continues, as he fights to get himself so well known and discussed in political media that the polls can no longer justify ignoring him. (And getting into the polls, and getting at least 15 percent in five of them as chosen by the Commission on Presidential Debates, will be key to getting into the debates, what Johnson often calls the "Super Bowl of politics.")

Gage Skidmore/Foter

Two big interviews this week in political-junkie journals The Hill and Politico highlight different parts of Johnson; the first more the radical policies, the second more the history of the man.

In The Hill, Johnson discussed big elements of the federal government he intends to chop, from the National Security Agency to the Internal Revenue Service:

"The NSA is a complete executive order as it is under [President Harry] Truman," Johnson said. "We could turn those satellites on what is supposed to be the enemy. The fact that they're pointed on us right now, doesn't that cause everyone a bit of concern? It should. Look, there's due process for spying, but due process is not blanket collection of all of our data."….

Johnson also said he would eliminate the IRS and lower taxes.

"If I could wave a magic wand, we would eliminate income tax; we would eliminate corporate tax; we would abolish the IRS; and we could replace all of it with one federal consumption tax," Johnson said.

"If we had zero corporate tax in this country, tens of millions of jobs would get created in this country for no other reason," he added.

Johnson also suggested he would eliminate numerous other federal agencies — including the Department of Commerce, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Department of Education — if presented with legislation to do so.

In a long interview with Politico, he got into great detail about his parents and his siblings (after the usual great, great, perhaps too great, emphasis on Johnson as the presidential candidate who is honest and direct about his appreciation for marijuana). 

He praised his mother for, according to Johnson, being responsible for balancing the books for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. His father was in the 101st Airborne Division in World War II:

He paratrooped into Normandy before D-Day….–you know, the Band of Brothers?…That was my father….Saving Private Ryan. That was the 101st. I mean, my father got bayoneted in the back at the Battle of the Bulge….He went through all of it. He was Band of Brothers. That was the story of the 101st, all the way through the war.

His brother Scott is "the best cardiothoracic surgeon in the world, and I know that for a fact because he tells me that all the time….the head of cardiothoracic surgery at the University of Texas at San Antonio, a big, big medical center." His sister is a retired schoolteacher.

Johnson suggests in this interview (after much discussion of Trump's offensive foolishness on immigration) he might not have signed NAFTA, being for more pure free trade than the crony capitalism often embedded in international trade deals. He agreed with getting Osama Bin Laden, and suggests that should have been the core goal post 9/11 as opposed to starting more than one multi-year war. 

Johnson also said one of the things that makes some libertarians doubt whether he instinctively goes for the no-government-action, leave-it-alone answer to policy questions, suggesting (after aptly pointing out that government intervention in the student loan market likely bears a great deal of responsibility for how expensive college is):

I would really take a hard look at how students might, I don't know, receive some sort of benefit or reduced interest rate. I mean, if we can–if the Federal Reserve can bail out all the big banks, it seems to me that we might arrange lower interest rates for these loans to get paid back.

He follows this up with a statement of principles that sums up why a sensible, aware politician might often have a libertarian answer without having an across-the-board libertarian attitude that "there needs to be a reason related to defense of life or property for government to act":

count on me to–as president of the United States, count on me–and this is what I did as governor. You know, we did an analysis of every single bill, and at the end of the day was the bill going to make things better? Was the average citizen's life going to be improved by the legislation or, at the end of the day, was it just going to add time and money and really not accomplish anything?

Well, for the most part, time and money got added, and at the end of the day I stood up and said, "I don't think this is going to make a difference in any of our lives. Sounds good. Looks good. It's a problem that we have. But government solving it with this piece of legislation? Uh-uh."

There is a big gap that bothers many libertarians between asking "is this a just or appropriate use of government power?" and Johnson's asking, will government action "make things better"? Still, it would be an improvement if an American president thought like Johnson does.

NEXT: Hartford's Ballpark: "The city has entered into a legal and financial quagmire"

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. I figured the announcement coming the night before the California polls was just a little too on the nose.

    2. I don’t think that shows what people think it shows.

      To me it shows that the org is proactive – they didn’t wait until the night of to make their graphics. Wouldn’t be surprised to find there are graphics ready covering Sanders’ amazing turnabout.

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ en/2/28/Deweytruman12.jpg

      1. What Agammamon said.

      2. After her, ” this is already done” comment on the Sunday shows, this allows her to come out and be humble. The old, “we are not taking anything for granted” act today.

    3. People were tweeting on June 1 that the Clinton campaign PLANNED to announce that they “Secured the nomination” right before California.

      That was before the PR primary that the Media pretends made some difference *(it didnt) to the electoral math such that the timing of this Pre-cali announcement made any kind of sense whatsoever.

      Its NOT shocking = its blatant, open collusion between the media and a candidate to try and pretend none of the remaining primaries matter.

      Because the fact is that a string of close-run contests (or any losses) will erode her support leading into the convention. And her worst fear would be Sanders attending that convention *still unbowed* and competing.

      This really doesn’t require any ‘expose’ at all because its wide out in the open. Why would any of the media (*much less ALL the major ones) announce Hillary the winner before the biggest state in the union even votes?

      1. I saw a few tweets talking about this days ago. I think the rumor started earlier – this (I hate them) TYT piece talks about it.

      2. The ‘this is shocking’ was sarcasm. It’s exactly what I would expect from Clinton. She’s reeking of desperation.

      3. It’s utterly hilarious that the DNC thought that Bernie would be an early, disposable aid for Hillary, to make it look like the Hillary Coronation was not really a Coronation. Oops!

        1. But…it worked. Bernie is still running, but the contest was tied up months ago.

          1. It lasted far too long for the DNC. It drained her, made her look weak, and has left the Democrats at least as divided as the Republicans.

    4. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
      >>>>>> http://www.realcash44.com

  1. Gary Johnson and the LP were ridiculed on Five on Five on Fox News for his interview on marijuana usage.

    1. What do you expect from a bunch of Trump (and one Hillary) supporter?

  2. Two big interviews this week in political-junkie journals?The Hill?and?Politico?highlight different parts of Johnson; the first more the radical policies, the second more the history of the man.

    NSFW?

  3. “is this a just or appropriate use of government power?”

    Is it in the constitution?

    1. What do a bunch of cis-hetero patriarchal slave-owners know about justice or appropriate use of power.

      /progderp

    2. Which one? The Federal or State of New Mexico? What is allowed by or be an acceptable action under one may not under the other.

  4. He can’t flub any of these interviews. He has to be spot on. He has to present himself like every other well-groomed and focus-group tested candidate as he’s presenting ideas unlike most other candidate’s. The Big Two get to make some missteps and recover. Johnson can’t.

    1. “The Big Two get to make some missteps and recover. Johnson can’t.”

      That’s like the understatement of the year.

    2. I disagree somewhat. If he wants to be different and is attacked or slandered by the news, he MUST respond to them along with his supporters as I respond to them.

      Not to respond to them is conceding .

      1. What he basically needs to do is to be the principled and knowledgeable version of Trump. IOW, a fearless, PC obliterating bull with brains and principles.

        I don’t see that Gary is up to it.

        1. I would agree with both counts. Fact is that he’s not going to win so take advantage of the time to tell the truth and say what needs to be said.

          1. I think we need to take the DNA of Rand Paul, Gavin McInnes, and Adam Kokesh and attempt to clone up the perfect libertarian. Is it possible we can get some DNA if we dig up the bones of Thomas Jefferson and Frederic Bastiat? Oh fuck, can we just get a decent speaker with principles and ballz? Is that too much to ask?

              1. You didn’t even let me get to the part about underground volcano lairs, robot armies, and sharks with laser beams.

              2. I think Hillary has an outfit like that.

              3. COBRA?

            1. Gavin McInnes? Is he that retard from The Rebel?

              Thomas Jefferson? The slave owner who centralized power during his time as president?

    3. The irony of people being completely dissatisfied with the two major party candidates (and political establishment as a whole) on one hand, while being completely dismissive of any candidate who isn’t as pre-packaged as the shitlords they are “rejecting”… what a terrible dichotomy.

      Hey, idiots, maybe if plastic politicians was such a good idea, the major parties would be doing better.

      1. There has to be a middle ground between plastic and that dude in the thong from the LP convention.

        1. Presumably there is, but as long as thong man exists, that is all that will get covered in the media.

          I live in Idaho and our governors race last cycle was a circus that got national attention. The current governor wanted the story to be about the crazy idiots who were running against him, not the one serious challenger who was far more liberty-minded than he was, so he let everyone who was running for governor into the debates. Hence, he stands as governor today, a big do-nothing establishment Republican prick.

        2. Look, if the Dems can nominate a serial liar and corrupt influence-peddler like Clinton and the Repubs can nominate Donald Freaking Trump, I don’t think the two party duopoly has any moral high ground to criticize the stripper dude at the LP convention.

          1. #StandWithThongMan

            No, not Sisq?.

  5. >blockquote>Johnson also said he would eliminate the IRS and lower taxes.

    “If I could wave a magic wand, we would eliminate income tax; we would eliminate corporate tax; we would abolish the IRS; and we could replace all of it with one federal consumption tax,” Johnson said.

    GayJay admits he’d be powerless in office.

    1. He said “wand” and not “pen and phone.”

      Euphemisms!

      1. So, “Johnson talks of ‘Waving a wand’“?

        1. “Johnson will wield wand: What has the Harry Potter generation wrought?”

        2. It makes him Magic Johnson.

          1. Good one. That meme should go viral.

            1. That meme should go viral.

              Photoshop him to look like Gandalf, pipe included, what could go wrong?!

          2. nice

          3. Or is his Johnson magical?

    2. Did he also mention when he stopped beating his wife? Were you born a mendacious cunt or was it learned?

  6. Here’s a piece of English opinion-journalism that follows the exact template Robbie uses. Is this a “thing” now? I haven’t really encountered it (in this fashion) outside Mr. Soave’s blog posts before.

    1. More than likely straight white men refused to attend before they were “banned”. Kind of like geeks banning girls from their clubhouse.

    2. Is this a “thing” now?

      the way i’d describe it is that “news journalism” – where writers adhere to a strict pretense of objectivity, and avoid editorializing – is going (or has gone) the way of the dodo.

      merely reporting on facts and keeping your bloody opinion out of it is generally not an option anymore. All “New Media” journalism is Opinion-Journalism, to greater or lesser degree.

      most outlets choose to provide the bare minimum of facts (or less – they just link to someone else’s facts), then add a light non-committal editorial gloss which leans in a certain direction, and call it a day.

      Other outlets might put in more effort … more links to facts, more detail, but the real difference would still mostly be on the editorial side, where they take a stronger opinionated stand and expound at greater length.

      The template you’re talking about seems to fall in the former category.

      e.g. – “On one hand” (list all the things where you sympathize with your target)……followed by “on the other hand” (then make your criticism of your target.)

      …and wash, rinse, repeat.

      aka – “constructive criticism”. Its like the sort of thing you’re supposed to learn to do in high-school essay-writing.

      its fundamentally wishy washy and “too easy” – all it gives is a cheap tut-tut, while avoiding the real underlying issue.

      e.g. “”That is not the way to tackle inequality””

      1. ^^THIS^^

      2. If they add a “on the gripping hand” section, I will be ok with it.

  7. Just reposting this comment here:

    Re: The Fair Tax discussion in a Johnson thread yesterday.

    My issue with it is that it would require a constitutional amendment and require one to be repealed. This pretty much makes it a non-starter politically.

    Second issue is that it would surely get hijacked, turned into a VAT, and then the income tax would still exist and we’d be like Europe.

    Thirdly consumption taxes, even if you exempt food are highly regressive. Marginal propensities and all, it’s a brutal way to tax for the poor and middle class. Without the social safety nets / free shit from the governments in Europe, it truly would be hell to burden with the VAT.

    A NIT is a much better idea. The FairTax already has a rebate thing that’s like a UBI anyway, it would be more effective to simply push for a NIT that added means testing to the equation and use the IRS to do it. This is a much more realistic goal than amending the constitution to remove the IRS and to replace with a consumption tax.

    Of course neither of these ideas are truly libertarian solutions, but they are the best we’re going to get and it would reduce government spending a lot. It would also have libertarian consequences in the way the poor spend their money.

    1. I just can’t understand why you’d go so far as to try to amend the constitution, risk the whole thing getting hijacked and turned into a VAT and then also risk not even eliminating the IRS.

      NIT as a replacement of other social programs is a goal that might actually have some tiny chance in hell of succeeding and would save us a shitload of money.

      It would also have positive effects on the poor and give them an incentive to make money because they would still get subsidized somewhat as long as they are making below a certain amount.

      Of course you could argue the NIT might get hijacked and just tacked on to current social programs. However, I think the FairTax getting hijacked is a far worse scenario and would pretty much lock us into European style VAT + Income tax combo from hell.

      It’s just so much more realistic especially short term to push for a more simple income tax code and to replace all or most social programs with a means tested NIT.

      1. I certainly would prefer a NIT to social programs and wage controls like the minimum wage but it’s not without it’s problems as well. I prefer the VAT and I think everyone including low wage earners should contribute to the leviathan they helped create and continue to sustain through their voting patterns. It’s not wholly regressive as the rich spend a hell of a lot more money even though it’s a smaller portion of their net worth. The downside is as you say we would probably just end up with both.

    2. Popper! Long time no see. So how has being a self-pitying child molester been treating you lately?

      1. Not much, just losing a lot of weight and getting in shape so I can more successfully get in the panties of barely legal girls.

        1. I thought boys were more of your thing.

          1. Only if they are very, very good at looking feminine and that is rare.

  8. Why wouldn’t New Jersey be more Bernie friendly? Is it they recognize Clinton as the sort of person that normally rules them and they went with that familiarity?

    1. Clinton is the type of politician they’re used to buying.

      1. Look no further than Tony Soprano Christie.

    2. Minorities.

  9. My 4 year old is a sexist!

    4 year old sexist

    He’s started conforming to very old fashioned stereotypes: pink is girlie, Mummy’s not allowed to play with male action figures, girls don’t do the driving (or hold toy guns ? for fear of breaking a nail, presumably) and, of course, boys always save the day

    1. These are the kids my kids are going to be competing against. It’s going to be SO fucking easy.

      1. Seriously. These people are insane. If I have learned anything from living with a 3 (almost 4) year old it is to not read too much into anything they say or do.

    2. Does a toddler have to slap a bitch? Quit whining!

    3. So the 4 year old already figured out that his parents are idiots. Good for him.

    4. Johnny Longtorso is only 4 years old?!?

      He has such good spelling for someone so young.

      1. Once you’ve made up your mind to put that sexist stuff behind you, bro, there’s nothing holding you back.

        1. Dad should be happy that he might get grand kids.

    5. People have lost their fucking minds.

  10. If Gary Johnson had been running in the GOP field this time around would you have supported Johnson over Rand? Rand has insisted over and over that he’s not his dad and he really, truly is a Republican but “everybody knows” (wink,wink) he’s a secret libertarian despite all the evidence to the contrary. And here’s Johnson, a former Republican who insists over and over he’s a Libertarian who gets slammed as a secret Republican. C’mon, man – if you supported Rand, you gotta be able to support Gary. Is Gary somehow less photogenic and charismatic than Rand? Does he trip more “No True Libertarian” alarms than Rand? He’s not a perfect LP candidate, but he’s the one we’ve got and he’s got an opportunity to get us one step closer to getting P politics accepted as mainstream rather than lunatic fringe. (Well, maybe – I do seem to recall somebody or another slamming the LP’s “strange silence” on the gay marriage thing as if the LP hadn’t been calling for gay rights since Day One, so maybe LP policies are lunatic fringe by definition and any that somehow become mainstream are ipso facto not LP and will ever be treated as such.)

    1. If Gary Johnson had been running in the GOP field this time around would you have supported Johnson over Rand?

      No.

      1. Not to be redundant, but Rand’s voting record stands on it’s own, not to mention all night filibusters trying to protect US citizens from drone death by government.

        I’ll take the proven libertarian any day.

        1. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    2. I would not have supported Johnson over Rand but he is clearly better than Clinton or Trump.

    3. If Gary Johnson had been running in the GOP field this time around would you have supported Johnson over Rand?

      It would have been a battle royale for the single digit oddball voter. Nothing would be different now.

    4. They’re almost equally libertarian. I’d have supported either, but head-to-head Rand would have been more electable.

      I often wonder what would have happened if Rand had stuck it out as long as Cruz?

      1. I don’t think he has the patience for it. He doesn’t seem to suffer fools very well.

        1. Being the most intelligent person on the stage has definite disadvantages unless you are also the best speaker and debater, and have the patience of a saint.

    5. I would pick Rand Paul over Gary Johnson, but Johnson has a better chance in the general election against Trump-Clinton.

  11. Expect to see 3 to 4 % of votes in California for GJ. This is not caused by GJ’s popularity or a libertarian moment. It is caused by the CA Republican party’s choice to have a closed vote. The demographic of middle-class CA white men want Trump to be president. I know this by my feet on the ground. Any three white guys alone together here these days and one will say something about ‘Trump’ and a discussion of politics will follow. I have never witnessed anything like this before. It is what it is. White identity politics. Whites have been a minority here for over a decade now. The progs will reap just what they sow.

    1. What, you mean decades of favoritism toward non-whites and decades of white-bashing is causing whites to think like an ethnic group (again)?? Who could ever have foreseen such a thing?

    2. I might have missed making my point above. A fellow I was working with today was eager to leave work and vote. He was registered as an independent and intended to write “Trump” in on his ballot on the open Democratic Party ballot. That’s a bit creative.

      This is deep state California. Registering as Republican is an invitation to a tax audit. Kamela Harris would have no qualms about the Franchise Tax Board sorting her subjects with registered Republicans on top.

    3. The progs could hardly reap a better harvest. If conservatism didn’t provide the most perfectly incapable impotent enemy, white identity politics will. WIP aren’t cool; so the younguns and brown folk will be theirs. WIP are mostly old uneducated assholes, so that cohort will literally die off with time and has no economic future. WIP can’t win. It’s the perfect enemy to have.

      1. You truly are stupid. Each post you make drops everyone’s IQ by a few points.

        1. Great insights. Really well thought out logic.

          1. Whites are still about 70% of the country, bub. And voting happens in private.

  12. Same articles seem to keep being written over and over about the Johnson Weld.

    http://theweek.com/articles/62…..nappealing

    1. I’m so surprised.

      /sarcasm

    2. he [GayJay] said he would continue using drones to assassinate people in countries where the United States has no declared hostilities, like Yemen and Pakistan.

      Shit, I totally forgot Johnson was for murderdroning people we weren’t at war with in countries where hostilities had not been declared. It’s hard to keep up with all the reasons why he’s such an awful Libertarian Party candidate

      1. I still think that after 9/11 we should have declared war on “Al-Qaeda and affiliates” and done this legally. Then, we could have tried and executed many of the people in Guantanamo for Geneva Convention violations, perfectly in accordance with international law.

      2. Harder to keep up with your hilarious contortions.

        1. Dougherty is a pro-lifer. Libertarian-leaning conservatives always balk at supporting any libertarianish candidate who isn’t anti-abortion enough for them. The LP nominated pro-Life Ron Paul, though. Another one of those one-way compromise deals. – Kevin R

  13. OT: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-case.html

    One kid gets falsely accused of rape and does 6 years and you know the rest…

    1. It helps to have money when you are charged with a crime?

      1. You think?

      2. The black dude was convicted of “rape-rape” (despite being ultimately innocent); the privileged whitey was convicted of some non-consensual assault but basically the “he never got his dick out”-kind. while its unlikely, its also possible the former dude had priors; the latter was a model-citizen with lots of people testifying to his angelic nature.

        the news media is unbelievably dishonest in how they report these sentencing issues, regardless.

        The whole “up to” bullshit (“up to 10/20 years if convicted”) is intentionally misleading. No one gets the max unless they also cut the person’s head off when they were done and ran to the police station with their dick still hard.

        The average sentences (*for people guilty as fuck of the most egregious examples) tend to still be 1/2 the “max”.
        the average sentences for people with a half-decent defense (despite being guilty as fuck) are 5years or whatever the prosecutor is happy w/ to call a ‘win’.

        the fact is that many people of the *same* race & income (ie. no “privilege” differences) can get wildly different sentences for the same exact crime. Depends on the judge, the prosecutor, how much else they have on the docket.

        the fact that Brock Turner ‘got off light’ says zero about anyone else’s case. I’m not even sure that he did. As noted – he’s a 1st timer, probably had stellar defense, never had his dick out, drunk as fuck. the fact he’s doing any jail time at all is what’s surprising.

        1. Jesus Christ. A guy assaulted and digitally penetrated and unconscious woman. And would have done worse if not for two bystanders.

    1. Cats are the ultimate libertarians. Can we get them registered to vote? It would be catist of anyone to refuse, mmkay?

      1. My current cat showed up punctually at our shop door day after day. He wanted a job. He’s a half-assed mouser, but an excellent morale officer. He is skittish around women, and really hates Union workers. He walks around like he owns the place. My cat is a perfect Republican.

        1. My last cat was a definite libertarian. He was an indoor/outdoor cat with a privileged life. I would let him out of the patio doors one morning for him to go on his daily prowl, a month later he would show back up there, me having thought he was dead, none worse the wear, fat and sassy, and acting like he owned the place.

          1. Your last cat was a prepper.

            1. TL,DR: it’s rough out there.

              I guess I like the idea of an outdoor cat but in that case it’s best not to be too attached to them. I keep mine indoors.

            2. Is prepper another word for asshole? One time he was gone for 3 months. That time I thought for sure he was dead. I came back from a trip and was cooking something up in my kitchen and I kept thinking I heard a cat. I walked out on my deck and … nothing. Went back to what I was doing, heard it again. Started back toward the patio doors and… holy shit, are you fucking kidding me? The guy just strolled on in and made himself at home, didn’t seem to be hungry, looked good. But he was a master hunter, rats, rabbits, birds, whatever, he killed a squirrel at least once I know since i watched him do it. I think he was at one of my neighbors, and my closest neighbor was several hundred yards away.

    2. Aw, I have one that looks exactly like this one.

    3. Cats suck.

      1. You suck.

        1. Cats suck worse! And they might make you insane: http://www.theatlantic.com/hea…..nd/282045/

        2. Cytotoxic once waterboarded a cat. True fact.

          1. He was house sitting and then stuff happened.

            1. I did what was necessary…

  14. Johnson suggests in this interview (after much discussion of Trump’s offensive foolishness on immigration) he might not have signed NAFTA, being for more pure free trade than the crony capitalism often embedded in international trade deals.

    GayJay is right here but Reason would attack almost any other candidate for this as “opposing free trade”.

    1. Reason would attack almost any other candidate for this as “opposing free trade”.

      Somehow I doubt GJ’s lack of NAFTA-love will get an article from Shikha on how war with Mexico will be the inevitable consequence of voting for him.

      1. No, because that would be absurd. Shikha is usually not prone to absurdity.

      2. War with Mexico worked for Texas and James K. Polk.

    2. Eh, he is wrong, but it’s wrong in a typically libertarian pie-in-the-sky refusal to admit reality kind of way (and shared by Ron Paul), rather than wrong in his “not standing for principle” way with refusal to cater religious ceremonies.

      The provisions embedded in international trade deals that make them so long consist of a few types:

      1) Long schedules for exactly how tariffs and other barriers are to be reduced. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this. Yes, I would always wish that the barriers go away faster, but it’s better to have a 5 or 10 year schedule eliminating trade barriers than not have the deal and keep the barriers.

      2) Provisions prohibiting substituting new types of barriers to replace the other ones, going into detail about what is not allowed, and providing a mechanism to challenge them. Similarly, it’s absolutely necessary to spell out this. It’s extremely common for countries, including the US, to try to adopt facially neutral regulations that have the effect of trade regulations. (E.g., the US banning clove cigarettes, produced in Indonesia and elsewhere, but exempting largely US-produced menthols.)

      1. 3) Related to the previous one, spelling out that certain types of regulations are permissible and not trade barriers. I can understand and agree that some health, environmental, or other regulations go too far, but it is still reasonable to distinguish actually neutral health and environmental regulations from facially neutral but discriminatory ones. The process of trying to keep out defective imports can be abused, certainly– but that potential for abuse is exactly why the regulations are so detailed.

        4) Imposing new labor, health, and environmental regulations on (typically poorer) countries party to the treaty. This is a hallmark of left Administration deals, but at least as far as NAFTA goes it’s absent, so while other details can be criticized on this grounds, it doesn’t make sense for NAFTA.

        5) Related to 4, and the hot topic, is imposing intellectual property agreements, such as respecting each others’ patents and copyrights. This again is not so much a feature of NAFTA, though many libertarians (but not all) would criticize TPP and others as going too far in this area.)

        1. 6) Inserting as many favorable clauses for your own business interests

    3. NAFTA was anything but free trade. I actually read the thing. It was government managed trade with plenty of goodies for the in crowd and plenty of control of the outs.

  15. In other Libertarian Moment news, Rand dropped his block on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, and we all know what naming a bill for a dead person means, so the Senate passed it and Obama is expected to sign it. Basically, the EPA is going to start regulating chemicals the way the FDA regulates drugs, with the presumption being that chemicals are bad and the burden of proof is on the chemical manufacturer to prove the chemicals are safe, with the added bonus that the EPA is specifically charged not to take cost into consideration – as in, “if it saves just one life” who cares how many billions of dollars it may cost? But I’m sure it will save millions of lives because we all know the chemical corporations love nothing more than poisoning their customers and there’s currently no way to hold them accountable for the genocide.

    And, of course, how the EPA implements the new law and how much funding the agency gets to do the work will have a huge impact on whether it will live up to its sponsors’ high hopes.

    Ah, yes, the high hopes. The intentions are all that matter. Doesn’t matter that anybody who thinks about this for more than a minute knows giving the tree-hugging, Gaia-loving, humanity-is-a-cancer-on-the-Earth Luddites at the EPA even more power to command a return to the Stone Age for us all is a Really Bad Idea.

    1. He’s the man, that’s what I’ve been saying. The kind of libertarian candidate we deserve, not the one we have.

    2. What did chemicals do to Frank R. Lautenberg?

      1. Lautenberg tried to ban model rocketry once. He was even worse than Chuck Schumer. Death hasn’t stopped him.

        1. Worse than moobz? Gawd, what sort of monster?

          1. New Jersey monster. Tremble in fear.

  16. Watching Fox to catch the numbers for the CA primary. Sort of watching, in that I can hear and see the TV from here. Funny how Fox is getting so combative and offended at what a pacifist Trump is. I thought he’s the ultimate war monger?

    1. Leading neocons say Trump’s foreign/defense policy is indistinguishable from that of Ron Paul.

      1. Paul is definitely less interventionist than Trump. Of course, you can’t trust neocons to not lie.

        1. Trump also spouts the usual neocon garbage regarding “deterrence” — we have to build up the military and make it so big/strong that no one will mess with us (until they criticize President Donald, then it’s nuke time).

          So, billions in new “defense” spending + non-corporate tax cuts + no meaningful entitlement reform. In other words, the George W. Bush administration all over again.

          1. ” In other words, the George W. Bush administration all over again.”

            Without sanity on immigration or….the respect for civil rights and rule of law….

            FFS watching libertarians twist themselves into knots to try and claim a ‘victory’ from Trump’s ‘foreign policy stance/blather’ is revealing. Even a Forbes Cato guy named Bandow does it (terrible writer). It’s been revealing. Apparently lots of libertarians are stupid.

            1. It’s understandable. Libertarians don’t get a lot of “mainstream” victories, so they’re latching onto Trump (some of them anyway).

              1. It’s not understandable because we’re supposed to be the smart ones, not the delusional idiots like SIV.

              2. No it’s not. Libertarians are supposed to be the smart ones, not delusional idiots like SIV.

          2. (until they criticize President Donald, then it’s nuke time)

            I wish you were right. I’d love to see Trump nuke the CFR.

            1. It’ll be YUGE!

          3. Trump also spouts the usual neocon garbage regarding “deterrence”

            Did you ever even read that stuff i pointed out to you defining what “neocon” (or hawkish) actually means?

            it doesn’t mean “hurr durr yay military”. Which seems to be how you use it.

            deterrence‘ – in the cold-war sense where it was popularized, has nothing to do with “Neoconservatism”… which didn’t exist when the idea was in vogue.

            You might call it an offshoot of Defensive Realism or something like that. But it involves tons of ideas like “proportionality” and “high-level diplomatic signaling” to actually function… most of which Neocons would have entirely rejected because…

            …Because the entire point of Neoconservatism is that it requires a ‘monopolar’ security world; where the US is the most powerful entity on earth and can use military power to shape the world order without worrying about anyone fucking with us, because they CANT, really.

            e.g. during the cold war? we could never have invaded a country like Iraq if they were allied with the Soviet Union. (or at the very least it would have been a significant consideration)

            Whereas now? as long as we’re not threatening the territorial integrity of Russia, they won’t say fucking boo if we decide to drone-bomb their ‘ostensible buddies’ in some places.

            just stop using “neocon” entirely.

            1. Did you ever even read that stuff i pointed out to you defining what “neocon” (or hawkish) actually means?

              Yeah. Reagan’s people were into “deterrence” if I remember (my history) correctly, but I wouldn’t call Reagan a “neocon” or even a “hawk.”

              You have a point.

              just stop using “neocon” entirely.

              So ? “liberal internationalist”?

              Clinton and Trump seem to disagree on a few foreign policy bits but they both manage to be terrible.

              1. Yeah. Reagan’s people were into “deterrence” if I remember (my history) correctly

                it was called the “Cold War”. It preceded Reagan’s presidency. When you had 2 dominant superpowers (bipolar) they effectively ‘deterred’ one another from action by hint/suggestion/threat of proportional reciprocity

                as the movie “the Good Shepherd” described it… they ‘kept the wars small’. (if constant)

                I wouldn’t call Reagan a “neocon” or even a “hawk.”

                again – neocon is irrelevant.

                “Hawk” is a relative term. No one is a “hawk” in isolation. You can be a ‘hawk’ on a policy, or you can be generally ‘hawkish’ relative to some other politician.

                unlike these other terms which describe actual Foreign Policy theories… its an empty term that just means “more than” or “aggressive” or “uncompromising”

                e.g. Hillary and/or Tom Cotton are both “foreign policy hawks” relative to Trump; Trump is more “hawkish” on border security; gary johnson is a “spending hawk”, etc.

                So ? “liberal internationalist”?

                I don’t know why you’d want to replace one expansive, theory-laden term which probably has zero relevance…. with another one?

                Just avoid meaningless lingo. Yes, trump and hillary are both terrible. In different ways.

                1. footnote – none of this is personal. I just have a stick up my ass about FP terminology that goes back many years. no one pays any attention to it. but i keep complaining.

                  you will hear me repeat something similar to the above when/if someone says “third world

              2. Reagan was a hawk, just not the kind that Reason likes to consider because it is not a strawman.

                Gilmore does make some good points.

      2. ‘Leading neocons’ say all kinds of things, and like most of them that equivalence is false.

  17. Bernie destroyed Hillary in the North Dakota and is ahead in South Dakota and Montanna.

    Hillary soundly beat Bernie in NJ, shocking, the most statist and corrupt state in the union.

    Very close in New Mexico.

    1. Hillary soundly beat Bernie in NJ, shocking, the most statist and corrupt state in the union.

      Hardly. Clinton’s wins are entirely predictable based on demographics. Lots of young white people = Sanders win. Anything else = Clinton win.

      1. NJ is a special sort of hell. I’ve been to Jersey and I never seen anything except for white people. I think it’s more of an east coast vs west coast thing. The north east is a haven of old school democrats. If Satan is running for office, you vote for satan, cause that’s what your grandpa did. West coast, we’re just fucking retarded, vote peak derp!

        1. I’ve been to Jersey and I never seen anything except for white people.

          The state is 69% white – I don’t think that’s as white as the states that Sanders has been winning.

          1. Black people do not feel the Bern.

          2. Correction: 59% “non-Hispanic white”.

          3. The progs are hypocrites, surprise, surprise!

            I watched a documentary a couple of days ago about how gentrification has driven minorities out of Portland, which is now inhabited by a large majority of white hipsters. Portland in the past had much higher minority population, especially blacks.

            Who is to blame? According to the Portlandian hipsters, Republicans! Something that is not a thing in Portland, unless you also want to believe in Bigfoot.

            Oh, bias, umm, derp, FOX NEWS. Umm, no sorry, this was a documentary on CNN.

      2. What has turnout been like in the Dem contest? I’m inclined to think that the only reason Bernie stuck around so long, aside from funding and obstinance, is that low turnout favored his diehard supporters.

    2. North Dakota is a caucus state, you dumbass. Almost all of his wins have been in those states.

      Hil-Dog wins the primary states.

      1. Well, I said you were ready to lick the cankles. I’m never wrong buttface, especially about you, cankle licker.

        1. If he’s right, which I think he is, then you’ve done the impossible and made PB into the more honest and intelligent commenter. Only you could do it.

    3. North Dakota is a caucus state, you dumbass. Almost all of his wins have been in those states.

      Hil-Dog wins the primary states.

      1. Shreek’s got on his fav affectionate term for his new master, Hil-Dog. You’re so cute, buttpig, now remove your head from Obama’s arse and get some more stank on by inserting it into … ewww, you are one sick puppy.

  18. This is a fantastic article from Alex Nowrasteh at The Federalist:American Conservatives Should Adopt Libertarian Immigration Policy

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/…..qus_thread

    Required reading! Alex guts every single restrictionist turkey you can think of. Ex: immigrants are bailing out the USG:

    In Medicaid, non-citizen immigrant adults and children are about 25 percent less likely to be signed up for Medicaid than their poor native-born equivalents. When they do sign up, poor immigrant adults consume $941 less on average than similar natives and typically have better health outcomes. Poor immigrant children consume $565 fewer dollars than similar native-born children.

    Immigrants have a positive long-run fiscal impact on Medicare and Social Security. From 2002 to 2009, immigrants made 14.7 percent of contributions to Medicare Part A while only consuming 7.9 percent of all expenditures, contributing a net $13.8 billion annually to Medicare Part A. Natives took out a net $30.9 billion more from Medicare Part A than they paid in. Among Medicare enrollees, average expenditures were $1,465 lower for immigrants. The differences are largely the result of return migration and varying age structures between the typically older natives and younger immigrants.

    1. Estimated impacts on the Social Security system vary widely. Based on actuarial information provided by the Social Security Administration, Stuart Anderson found that an increase in legal immigration by 33 percent would reduce the actuarial debt by 10 percent over 50 years, boosting revenues to Social Security by a present value of $216 billion over 75 years. Interestingly, a moratorium on immigration would increase the Social Security debt by almost a third.

    2. Reading the comments section below that article was frightening. Those nativists are beyond paranoid, almost schizophrenic.

      “WHO CARES WHAT STUDIES SAY! WE’RE LOSING OUR COUNTRY!”

      “JERBS! DEY TUK ER JERBS!!!!”

      1. They are a bunch of illiterates. It’s pointless to negotiate with them; they have to be amputated from influence and run under. One of the few benefits that President Clinton will bring (and make no mistake it’s hers) is amnesty and maybe a saner immigration policy.

        It’s not enough to beat these ‘people’. They must be broken and deprived of hope. It must be so that trying to win their vote is obviously pointless and counter-productive.

        1. It’s not enough to beat these ‘people’. They must be broken and deprived of hope. It must be so that trying to win their vote is obviously pointless and counter-productive.

          Yes, ^this^.

          I was pretty much always in favor of open borders ever since I turned libertarian, but those assholes along with Trump’s campaign have pushed me further into the open borders camp. (And why I get pissed when I see Trump apologists here defending the Welfare State from “illegal” immigrants.)

          We had completely open immigration coinciding with the Industrial Revolution, including the arrival of the Chinese immigrants who gave us the Intercontinental Railroad. Then you had the black “workers” who were still treated like slaves and forced to work agriculture in the Upper South because the former White Massas were too goddamn lazy to do it themselves.

          I’m convinced that those commenters on The Federalist are insecure whites projecting contempt for cardboard cutout “illegals” because it makes them feel better about their own worthlessness.

          1. I have a dark confession to make: literally over a decade ago, I was kind of like those idiot commenters at The Federalist or Papaya or such. Then I got smart and started thinking and taking the evidence into account. It fed into itself. If only the ‘libertarians’ in these parts could, you know, think and not just link to weirdo fringe blogs.

            Open borders would basically fix most of America’s problems. President Clinton would be a tiny price to pay in the grand scheme of things.

  19. I detect by virtue of foul smell that Hillary sycophants have infested the thread. Stinky cankle trolls.

  20. Nate Silver puts it best, as usual: Hillary Clinton Will Be Nominated Because More Democrats Are Voting For Her

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea…..ing-to-ap/

    This outcome was pretty damn obvious and has been for months. One commenter put it rather hilariously:

    Bernie supporters in March: superdelegates are awful!

    Bernie supporters now: superdelegates are groovy and should support our man!

  21. I was within ten feet of Bernie Sanders yesterday on Mission Street in SF. I was at a stoplight and four Suburbans blocked the intersection and then two SFPD cruisers. The local Marxist pols got out of one, and then lo and behold, Grandpa Gulag himself appeared looking like a commie Santa Claus. I opened up my window and yelled out, “socialism is never the answer” a few times. I got a dirty look from Jane Kim and Bernie ignored me as he started to shake hands. The Secret Service guys were impassive, but I noted a small smile on the face of one of the SFPD. He told me I should just make a U turn so I wouldn’t have to wait it out.

    1. Nice.

      You know what would have been better? If you had multiple containers of deodorant in your car and you waved them in the air for Sanders to see.

      1. Fuckin’ win right there.

    2. Oh but that’s not true Suell. Socialism can be the answer for lots of questions, like ‘why is Venezuela a hopeless violent shithole?’

      1. “The right socialists weren’t in charge.”

        What Venezuela needs is its own Obama.

        1. Socialism is also the answer when the question is, “what is the most destructive idea of the last one hundred years.”

          1. It has certainly claimed the most lives (counting Communism/Socialism as one brand).

          2. I don’t think any intellectual argument against socialism works in a democracy. Let’s try ‘eating your pets’:

            http://www.thegatewaypundit.co…..irds-food/

            Would one libertarian eat another libertarian while stranded on a barren island?

            .

            1. GateWayPundit is not worth a click.

    3. Grandpa Gulag lost to Grandma Mao?

    1. OMG the one on the left looks exactly like my other one.

    2. If she killed them all she’d be the greatest president any country ever had.

    3. See? Grandma has to eat cat food because of Paul Ryan’s budget cuts.

      1. Cat food is nutritious, just ask the NORKs.

        1. Ugh. Those poor innocents. Kim Jong-un can go jump into a woodchipper… the fat fuck.

          1. They’re actually doing better lately and I hate to say it but the New Boss might be why. NK is putting some market reforms in place. The country is nearly self-sufficient in food. Regulations and bans on capitalism are being ignored.

  22. Gary you have my vote, also for you indigenous commentariat check out the book “The Real Lincoln,” quite fascinating as it reveals what a monster Lincoln was.

    1. Already believe you about Lincoln. Gary is no libertarian, he sold out.

      1. Oh Christ, you seriously just accused someone of ‘selling out’. Are you in competition with Nick for ‘most pathetic caricature of Boomer trying to be cool’?

    2. He was the monster that liberated the south.

  23. Shreek is the most predictable troll on the interboobz. He can no longer control his affection for his Hillary. Lolololololol, lick those cankles buttpig, like I said you would. I got your number, you’re my bitch, loser.

  24. No one reads The Hill or Politico, except political junkies who already know who they are voting for.
    Meet the Press was nice, but except for the day of the nomination, Gary Johnson has been pretty much shut out by the mainstream media. He doesn’t show up in Google News headlines at all.

  25. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>> http://www.realcash44.com

  26. What a damn shame. Two Republicans, running as Libertarians, who can’t even define what libertarian values are. Johnson believes in forcing Jews to make cakes for Nazis, and Weld (who backed Romney, then Obama, then Kasich), has been a Libertarian for a month. Way to go LP. Two losers running against two other big name losers. It makes me sick.

  27. Will government action “make things better”? It depends for whom. Nearly always, there are winners and losers. So this is not tge way to ask the question.

  28. I’m pencilling in Ron Paul for prez.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.