Election 2020

Libertarian Presidential Contender Jo Jorgensen Wants To Combine Principle With Palatable Persuasion

She sees government COVID-19 restrictions as "the biggest assault on our liberties in our lifetime."

|

Jo Jorgensen, a senior lecturer in psychology at Clemson University, had such a wonderful time running as the Libertarian Party's vice presidential candidate on a ticket with Harry Browne in 1996 that she's long contemplated taking a swing at the presidential slot. Professional conflicts kept her from doing so for most of this century, and she took herself out of the potential running in 2012 since she was impressed with former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson's big-name real-world qualifications. Jorgensen sees 2020 as an opportunity to try for the top spot on the Libertarian ticket.

While pleased with Johnson as a candidate, Jorgensen did not care for "how outside Republican consultants ran his campaign." She thinks they didn't do enough thorough data-sharing with the party and that Johnson's candidacy, despite its record-high vote totals, didn't do enough to permanently grow party membership. Jorgensen notes that the Browne/Jorgensen campaign year saw both higher national paid membership growth, and a growth that lasted longer, than the 2016 campaign led by Johnson and Bill Weld. It's those new members, Jorgensen says, who will be the candidates, canvassers, donors, and activists to keep the party healthier down the line.

Senior Editor Brian Doherty spoke with Jorgensen by phone last night after she'd completed another online debate, this one broadcast by the We Are Libertarians podcast and featuring the three top selections of a delegate-only poll after an earlier Kentucky Libertarian Party debate from last week: Jorgensen, John Monds, and Judge James Gray (who had been Johnson's running mate in 2012). The party's delegates will begin the process of picking their candidate via an online virtual convention tomorrow.

Reason: How was tonight's debate for you?

Jorgensen: I thought it went very well. People who will tell me the truth told me I probably came in first, but we'll see what the delegates say. That's the important audience.

What do you think the Libertarian delegates want in a candidate this year?

I really think they want what I'm selling: a candidate both practical and principled. Some other candidates aren't following the platform all the way, [which they think means] being practical but they stray from the platform too much. I've also seen complaints regarding people who think they are being very hardcore selling freedom and liberty, but aren't showing how they would persuade, how they'd sell [Libertarian ideas] to the American people.

COVID-19, though not something anyone was thinking about when this campaign began, is going to be the dominant issue. What's your take on it for a national electorate?

That government is way too intrusive [in general] is why I'm running, why we even have the Libertarian Party. But even I've been shocked at the [government's reaction to COVID-19]. Los Angeles announcing it will be closed through August? That's just unconscionable.

If cities and states continue to stay closed, it will make it much harder to campaign, of course. But the [COVID-19 reaction] has been the biggest assault on our liberties in our lifetime, and it's two-pronged. There's the personal assault, with us all under house arrest. We can't go to our jobs, we can't go to funerals, weddings, can't see our families.

That's the personal aspect, then there's the economic aspect. That fact that govenment is bailing out companies with two trillion dollars…whenever government spends money, government bureaucrat money [tends to] go to their friends, special interests, and lobbyists. It would be better if Americans got to keep their money and let them decide which companies deserve money, not the government.

Are there any aspects of a hardcore Libertarian message you think are just totally unpalatable to a typical voter?

I am supporting the Libertarian platform plank for plank. But what is not persuasive is someone just saying "I'm for liberty and freedom" and that's all. The people who will be [convinced] by liberty and freedom for their own sake are probably already in the party. What we have to do is convince soccer moms, business people, the average person that our ideas will work better.

For example, I don't think it's a good tactic to just say "it's my body I can put whatever I want in it, take whatever drugs I want." We need to explain to Americans this is how that would help you—crime will go down, your kids won't have drug dealers in school [or as neighborhood role models of success]. Who ever heard of a liquor store owner pushing gin on kids in middle school? I want to argue from a practical standpoint, explain to most Americans that I'm not [supporting drug legalization] because I want to use drugs or you do. I want a better, safer America for your kids and one with less violence.

What are some other issues you'd expect to front and center if you win the nomination?

Health care is urgent, literally life or death. If we don't stop the path to single payer, it's going to be disastrous for the country. It's the most frustrating thing that [many Americans see our health care issues as a failure] for free markets. I want to shout from the rooftops that we do not have a free market system in health care and how if we tried free markets, they would work.

I'd also talk about bringing the troops home, and the environment. I'd stress that if you look around the globe [historically] you see wherever there is bigger government, there's more pollution. As far as global warming, I don't want to get in a debate about how we got here. I want to talk about how to get the cleanest Earth we can get, and if we don't want global warming then nuclear power is the best option. [Rather than one imposed government standard] for reactors, we need a bunch of different companies out there competing, without government picking the winners. Imagine if in the early days of the computer field, the government said, "Bill Gates, you win. Apple, you are shut down." The reason why we got the iPhone is because Steve Jobs and Bill Gates couldn't stand each other and were competing against each other. [Regulations on nuclear power] lost that impetus for competing companies to try to provide better quality.

On immigration, I would put forward the message of the party platform. I would like to dispel [anti-immigrant] myths. Media will find a few immigrants with a drunk driving incident, or some kind of crime of violence, and plaster it all over the place, but if you look at statistics, people born in the U.S. are more likely to commit crimes than people born in other countries who are here.

A lot of so-called immigrant crimes are not stealing money but just crossing the border. If you look at the economic impact overall, it's a net positive. I'd also like to mention I'm the granddaughter of three immigrants and my attitude is not "I'm the last one in, close the door behind me." I want the country more open to everyone not for their sake but for America's sake. It makes our economy more vibrant if we have immigrants come and join us.

What would you say to Trump voters?

I would tell them, you voted last time, sometimes for the first time or first time in 20 years, because you were tired of the same old politicians and wanted something different. But he got into office and acted like all the others. He said he'd cut government size and instead it's bigger; he said he'd get rid of the deficit and he's going in the other direction. You wanted something new and [a Libertarian] is something new, not just another big government spender.

Are you very interested in the political implications of being a woman?

I'll put it this way: [Of the leading Libertarian candidates] I provide the greatest contrast to Trump and Biden. The media keeps talking about, oh, two old rich white guys again, even the Democrats who say they want diversity. Well, I provide the greatest contrast.

Your academic expertise is in industrial organization and psychology. Do you have any professional insights on the recent behavior of the Libertarian National Committee as they try to deal with the convention process around COVID?

No. I have not been watching it at all. I didn't even sign in until Sunday for the first [online practice meeting for the virtual convention this weekend]. Campaigning for president is already a full-time job.

If you win the presidential nomination, do you know who you prefer as vice president?

One thing I know about Libertarians is they don't like to be told what to do, so even if I had a choice I wouldn't tell them. If I got the nomination I [might say] here are four or five I think would be great, but if you don't like them, vote for someone else. The important thing is not to have a [vice presidential] candidate who would have an opposing platform from mine. I would be happy with some of the current presidential nominees [in the VP slot].

How do you assess your appeal compared to your competitors?

I think we need to run a serious campaign. We need to present an option to the American people [comparable] to Trump and Biden. And while Vermin Supreme is very funny—I thought it was hysterical when he says when he gives you a free pony, if you want a unicorn he'll give you a converter kit—and if I get the nomination I hope he continues his outreach to young people, I think our nominee should run a more serious campaign.

The way I closed the last couple of debates is I pointed out that Jacob Hornberger is extremely principled, he's right down the line in following the platform and that's admirable. And I think Judge Gray is very practical, he keeps saying he doesn't want to give an all-or-nothing message to voters and I agree—we need to present practical solutions to the American people. And I'm the best of both worlds, vote for me because I'm both principled and practical. I'm proud that the Pragmatic Caucus endorses me overwhelmingly and the Radical Caucus gave me a "B" rating, which of the top candidates no one got higher than a "B." This demonstrates I can appeal as both principled and practical.

I have had a lot of people say that they can't find any negatives about me. Some say I'm their second choice. I think more than anyone else I can bring unity to the party, no one else has had [that kind of support from both Pragmatic and Radical caucuses]. I think I'm the perfect blend, the only one who has, and I hate to sound like a Ph.D., but the only one who has evidence and data [on her side].

Advertisement

NEXT: Sanders Delegates Banned From Bashing Biden on Social Media

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 hate to tell her, but “the biggest assault on our liberties in our lifetime” will not go over as palatable persuasion. All that will be heard is, “I’m interested in killing Grandma.”

    1. To some, yes. But to the people writing articles like “End this Now!” in the New York Post, and the readers agreeing, what she is saying is likely to have traction.

      1. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week. No Experience Needed, No Boss Over Your Shoulder… Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limited Number Of Spots Open…
        Find out how HERE……More here

    2. The most absurd fallacies take the form of predictions from Revelation.

  2. A full feature 10 question piece for Jo but only 3 questions and an abbreviated, burried piece on THE REAL VERMIN SUPREME?!?

    I smell a RAT.

    1. Vermin Supreme absolutely has my vote. He would truly be the greatest president in history.

      1. He would truly be the greatest president in history.

        Especially if he wears the boot on his head during SOTU speeches and all other official functions. Just getting to see him great foreign dignitaries like that would be worth it.

        1. The image of that at those those functions made me laugh (yes, out loud).

          1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

            Heres what I do……► New Income Opportunities

    1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . HBo Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

      Heres what I do……► Online Jobs provid

  3. While pleased with Johnson as a candidate, Jorgensen did not care for “how outside Republican consultants ran his campaign.”

    Her more principled and palatable message is that the Johnson/Weld campaign was derailed by *republican* *consultants*? WTHF? What did they do wrong? Fail to inform the campaign that Bill Weld may not, in fact, be a Republican *or* a Libertarian?

    FFS, her “What is an Aleppo?” moment.

    1. .. will be hilarious

    2. Can’t wait for her VP pick to off-handedly blame the Clinton Campaign’s failure on Republican consultants.

      1. Is the POTUS candidate picking their running mate this time instead of them being nominated too?

    3. Republicans would have had Gary again declare women good-Faith chattel in the War on Race Suicide, and again kept his vote total below one percent (as in 2012). Mystical infiltrator Ron Paul dragged us below half a percent of the vote. Pro-rights Gary and Weld nettes us over 4 million votes covering the gap in 13 states aggregating way more electoral votes than the gap between looter parties. Here we have a clear Pepsi Challenge proving that 3 times as many thinking voters prefer to include women as rights-bearing individuals.

      1. Anecdotal evidence.

        BTW, why don’t you care about the right to not bake a cake?

  4. I don’t think it’s a good tactic to just say “it’s my body I can put whatever I want in it, take whatever drugs I want.”

    Oh but it is!

  5. “Let’s get specific on policies you can sell to the average American. Really hit us with the details. What do you have for the American people.”

    “Open borders!”

    “Um …”

    “DRUGS!”

    “But, specifically ….”

    “NUCLEAR!”

    “How about some concrete ….”

    “FREEDOM!”

    That’s why libertarians will never win any political race that matters.

    1. because they’re right? I agree. People can’t handle the right thing to do they want an authoritarian nanny state so they vote for one.

      1. Right, basically the rest of the world wants a politician to say “You know those things important to you personally? I’m going to give you a lot of freedom there, while making sure that all the other stuff that you don’t like gets restricted because those rubes aren’t enlightened like you and me.”

      2. Because a libertarian cannot draw a map from reality to their dreams. They always start off and end in fantasy land, where all the solution are just sitting right there.

        How do we get there? Duh! By TALKING about it.

        Ridiculous.

        1. you’re blabbering nonsense. What is your actual critique of libertarianism again?

          1. That libertarians have no idea what they are talking about or how to turn their fantasies into reality.

            You are a perfect example.

            1. haha you are insane. I have proposed nothing just asking you what in the hell you’re talking about.

              1. //I have proposed nothing//

                Libertarianism in a nutshell.

                1. Gasbag Blowhard,
                  Please listen!
                  You don’t know,
                  What you’re missing!
                  Donald’s ass, don’t be kissin’!
                  Trump won’t love you,
                  He’ll push and shove you!
                  He’ll take your vote,
                  Then call you a goat!
                  He’ll tax your money,
                  Then steal your Honey!
                  Your pussy, He will grab,
                  Your back, He will stab!
                  His-victims-routines, He’s iterating,
                  Shit about YOU, He’ll be Twitterating!

            2. That libertarians have no idea what they are talking about or how to turn their fantasies into reality.

              Yet another Utopian angry that libertarians don’t have a plan for bringing about Utopia.

              1. You’re the only one mentioning Utopia. Does this soften the blow of every unserious libertarian candidate crashing and burning around you?

                1. Geraje Guzba
                  May.21.2020 at 11:56 am

                  Because a libertarian cannot draw a map from reality to their dreams. They always start off and end in fantasy land, where all the solution are just sitting right there.

                  This is pretty much the only tune you sing. What, exactly, do you mean by “a libertarian cannot draw a map from reality to their dreams?” Or your various and sundry bitching about libertarians not having “solutions?”

                  What are libertarians supposed to “solve” for you?

                  1. They can start by presenting their policy proposals. Jorgensen has not done that.

                    Why does that anger you so much?

                    You’re embarrassing yourself.

                    1. They can start by presenting their policy proposals. Jorgensen has not done that.

                      Why does that anger you so much?

                      You’ve got a serious problem with the projection thing. I’m not the one shitting up the thread bitching about some vague lack of perfection among libertarians without actually presenting any coherent position of my own.

                    2. I don’t understand why you’re so pissed off.

                      If you want to counter with the assertion that Jorgensen presented her policy proposals clearly and with specific, feel free to do so.

                    3. If you want to counter with the assertion that Jorgensen presented her policy proposals clearly and with specific, feel free to do so.

                      Don’t hurt yourself running around with those goalposts.

                      I was critiquing your characterization of libertarians, which is 99% of what you’re talking about here, only retreating to the bailey of “I was only talking about Jorgensen!” when you run out of other things to toss out.

                    4. I’m going to vote for Trump.

                      Did that get your dick hard?

                      Delusional twat.

                    5. I don’t understand why you’re so pissed off.

                      Again, I’m not the one who initiated the bitching on a libertarian platform about how much they hate libertarians.

                      But, yes – as a libertarian whom you are directly insulting, I am feeling insulted, and given that I already think you’re a bit of a putz, that tends to annoy me.

                    6. I’m going to vote for Trump.

                      Is that you finally admitting what your argument actually is?

                      If so, all your criticisms of Jorgensen feel a little retarded now, don’t they?

                      I mean, don’t get me wrong – there are good reasons to vote for Trump. But all the arguments you’ve made here today now make you look like a total idiot.

                    7. //I am feeling insulted//

                      Nobody cares. Fuck off.

                    8. //Is that you finally admitting what your argument actually is?//

                      So the answer is: “Yes, that got my dick hard, sir.”

                      I know exactly what to say to make you feel better about Jorgensen having no fucking clue about anything and, perhaps, to make you feel better in general since it seems like you are genuinely suffering.

                      I lied, by the way. I’m voting for Biden, but only because Amash dropped out.

                      Did you cum yet?

                    9. Nobody cares. Fuck off.

                      Then why did you ask?

                      For someone so obsessed with consistency, you indulge in a striking lack of it.

                    10. So the answer is: “Yes, that got my dick hard, sir.”

                      I know exactly what to say to make you feel better about Jorgensen having no fucking clue about anything and, perhaps, to make you feel better in general since it seems like you are genuinely suffering.

                      Mm’kay. So we’re back to you not having an argument? I thought your complaint was about people who don’t have arguments and aren’t logically consistent?

                      I don’t think there’s a good reason to vote for Biden, so if you are actually telling the truth this time, please don’t do that.

                    11. //Then why did you ask?//

                      So everyone can see what a bitch you are by admitting that you allow online shit posting to dictate your emotions.

                      Have a beer. Don’t worry. Your shitty candidates will still be there when you’re done.

                    12. //Then why did you ask?//

                      So everyone can see what a bitch you are by admitting that you allow online shit posting to dictate your emotions.

                      And then pretend you don’t care? And then assert that you do care?

                      Don’t you just hate people who are inconsistent?

                    13. Only when they’re running for President.

                    14. Only when they’re running for President.

                      Mmm’kay. So is your outrage reserved for Jorgensen, specifically, or for libertarians generally?

                      Or have you noticed that other people running also often are lacking in the specifics and consistency department?

                      Can I ask you one more time, knowing you won’t answer:

                      Is there a reason your outrage at lack of specifics and consistency is directed at libertarian politicians exclusively? Do major party politicians get a pass, or are you saying that major party politicians are consistent and specific in contrast to libertarians?

                    15. “I’m not the one shitting up the thread bitching”

                      Yeah, bro, you are.

                      You may not be the ONLY one tho.

                    16. Yeah, bro, you are.

                      You may not be the ONLY one tho.

                      Fair enough. I confess this guy annoys me more than most.

                    17. “But, yes – as a libertarian whom you are directly insulting,”

                      You really need to take that up with your ideological figureheads then instead of taking offense that someone points out the flaws in the movement and how it’s sold.

                  2. All that effort and, at the end of the day, I’m not going to vote for Jorgensen and, the real funny part, neither are you.

                    1. All that effort and, at the end of the day, I’m not going to vote for Jorgensen and, the real funny part, neither are you.

                      You can vote how you want. In my opinion, in NY a vote for Trump is 100% pointless, but different people have different notions about that.

                      I, in fact, already did vote for Jorgensen, and will in the general if she is the candidate (which is unlikely).

                      But curious, you’re “ha, ha for all your efforts I’m still dismissing Jorgensen” is supposed to be some kind of triumph, rather than you admitting that your whole argument about libertarians being inconsistent fantasists completely fell apart just now and logic and reasoning don’t really have anything to do with how you’re going to vote?

                    2. //I, in fact, already did vote for Jorgensen, and will in the general if she is the candidate (which is unlikely). //

                      That *is* funny and it also explains why you’re so fucking butthurt about the whole thing. But the fact that people like *you* vote for Jorgensen is also the reason why nobody else will.

                      Maybe instead of crying, like you’ve now been doing for several hours, you can explain how Jorgensen will change health care in this country.

                      And, you know, be specific. And, of course, consistent.

                      Take your time.

                    3. “I, in fact, already did vote for Jorgensen,”

                      THAT explains why you’re so angry and bitchy about his criticisms of ya grrrrl

                    4. Maybe instead of crying, like you’ve now been doing for several hours, you can explain how Jorgensen will change health care in this country.

                      Run back to the bailey!

                      I haven’t made any claims about the quality of Jorgensen’s plans or ideas. You have. I haven’t claimed libertarianism is the end-all-be-all of logic and consistency. You claim I think that. You fault libertarians for being illogical and inconsistent, but can’t point to anyone who is logical and consistent, making me doubt your stated values.

                      I want publicity for libertarian ideas. I have no illusions that Jorgensen is going to be our next president. I think she’s a decent spokesperson, compared with the other choices we have available.

                      I’m wondering what your specific problem with libertarians is, since your complaints apply to all political figures I’m aware of. What makes the libertarians special recipients of your wrath?

                    5. //I haven’t made any claims about the quality of Jorgensen’s plans or ideas.//

                      And yet you still fucking voted for her. Why?

                      //I want publicity for libertarian ideas.//

                      What ideas, specifically?

                      //I have no illusions that Jorgensen is going to be our next president. //

                      So why the fuck did you vote for her?

                      //I think she’s a decent spokesperson//

                      That cannot even articulate her positions or policy proposals. And you still voted for her.

                      //What makes the libertarians special recipients of your wrath?//

                      The incoherence, the lack of policy proposals, the vanity campaigns, and the vanity voting. Basically, all the shit you just mentioned.

                    6. //I haven’t made any claims about the quality of Jorgensen’s plans or ideas.//

                      And yet you still fucking voted for her. Why?

                      Because I think she has broader appeal than Hornberger, although I don’t think either one is ready for primetime, really.

                      //I want publicity for libertarian ideas.//

                      What ideas, specifically?

                      I’m going to guess that if I don’t give you a 1,000 pages of detailed policy proposals you’ll accuse me of the same thing you’re accusing everyone else of, but to me the important message is the ineffectiveness of government even at achieving the things political partisans think they want coupled with emphasis on both the moral and practical value of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and economic freedom.

                      I’m not getting that from Biden or Trump. If you’ve got someone else mind, dear God will you finally mention that person already?

                      //I have no illusions that Jorgensen is going to be our next president. //

                      So why the fuck did you vote for her?

                      Because an election is not a contest to see who can guess the winner.

                      //I think she’s a decent spokesperson//

                      That cannot even articulate her positions or policy proposals.

                      In soundbites to your satisfaction. Again, who is out there running for President staking out better positions on things?

                      //What makes the libertarians special recipients of your wrath?//

                      The incoherence, the lack of policy proposals, the vanity campaigns, and the vanity voting. Basically, all the shit you just mentioned.

                      Okay. We’re back to admitting that you specifically have a problem with libertarians generally. What makes me think when I ask you to get specific you’re going to say “I’m only saying Jorgensen doesn’t have any proposals!”

                      Isn’t it really that you think “I want government out of my life” doesn’t count as a proposal because it doesn’t achieve any of your policy goals?

                      But you’re only talking about Jorgensen!!1!

                    7. How is Jorgensen going to reform healthcare? What is her plan, exactly? You keep waxing poetic about the obvious and self-evident merit of libertarian ideas but neither you, nor Jorgensen, provide anything worth listening to.

                      That’s the problem. You know it’s a problem, you just don’t want to fucking admit it. And, when you are backed into a corner, you complain about other politicians. I don’t give a fuck about what the other candidates are doing, or proposing.

                      What is YOUR CANDIDATE proposing?

                      You don’t even fucking know and it shows.

                    8. “I want publicity for libertarian ideas”

                      Then you should probably think up a better way to present them, because right now the LP seems to be running on “fuck Americans, give us weed and cheap shit”

                    9. “I’m not getting that from Biden or Trump”

                      No. What you’re getting from Biden and Trump is direction/motive.

                      Biden: progress uber alles, Daddy Gov will take care of everything

                      Trump: America first, make America great again

                      You’re getting their priorities.
                      What are we getting from libertarians?

          2. What is your actual critique of libertarianism again?

            That they’re not Republicans?

            1. Everyone that’s not a libertarian … is an AUTHORITARIAN!

              Vote LP, 2020.

              Good luck.

              1. Anyone who supports government initiating force IS an authoritarian. It’s literally the definition.

                1. “Here’s an idiot ….”

                  “HEY!!”

                  “What?”

                  ” I just want to make clear that I *am* literally an idiot.”

                  “Okay.”

                  1. ” I just want to make clear that I *am* literally an idiot.”

                    Glad to see you’re developing some self-awareness. Acknowledging the problem is the first step toward recovery.

                    1. Fuck off. You deluded libertarians are like zombies dog piling on each other to scale buildings.

                    2. That guy has nothing like most trolls.

                    3. NAP!

                      The answer for everything. You can just say it, and solutions materialize.

                    4. Fuck off. You deluded libertarians are like zombies dog piling on each other to scale buildings.

                      Pray tell, what do you Republican loyalists bring us? Besides the constant name-calling and whining about your Lost Utopia?

                    5. Not a Republican. Don’t believe in Utopia.

                      Brush your fucking teeth.

                    6. NAP!

                      The answer for everything. You can just say it, and solutions materialize.

                      Why don’t you share some of your solutions? The detailed ones. The ones that will “work.”

                      For all your bitching about libertarians not having “solutions” to whatever it is we’re supposed to solve for you, I haven’t ever seen you express an idea of your own.

                      Care to enlighten us?

                    7. Not a Republican.

                      Please.

                      Don’t believe in Utopia.

                      Then why do you keep bitching about libertarians not having a plan to create one?

                    8. //For all your bitching about libertarians not having “solutions” to whatever it is we’re supposed to solve for you, I haven’t ever seen you express an idea of your own.

                      Care to enlighten us?//

                      Oh, I get it. Rather than admitting Jorgensen is a useless candidate with no actual policy proposals, let alone libertarian ones, I now have to play politician to help you deal with the cognitive dissonance of libertarian inconsistency.

                      Is that right?

                      Fuck off.

                    9. //Not a Republican.
                      Please.//

                      Everyone needs a bad guy to blame for their failures.

                      Fuck off.

                    10. Oh, I get it. Rather than admitting Jorgensen is a useless candidate with no actual policy proposals, let alone libertarian ones, I now have to play politician to help you deal with the cognitive dissonance of libertarian inconsistency.

                      Is that right?

                      No. I’m asking you what you have to offer in contrast.

                      And you keep declaring libertarianism to be inconsistent, but without presenting any argument or demonstration of that whatsoever. But I suppose your rules don’t apply to you?

                    11. Everyone needs a bad guy to blame for their failures.

                      Not everyone, but you certainly seem to need one. Fucking libertarians.

                    12. //And you keep declaring libertarianism to be inconsistent, but without presenting any argument or demonstration of that whatsoever.//

                      Because if I don’t present an alternative, it means libertarianism is internally consistent.

                      More delusional thoughts from fantasy island.

                    13. Because if I don’t present an alternative, it means libertarianism is internally consistent.

                      No, you keep declaring libertarianism to be internally inconsistent without actually demonstrating that, and then you bitch that libertarians don’t do enough to spoon-feed their arguments to you. And then you bitch more about inconsistency.

                      And then whenever you get asked what the alternative is, who it is who is presenting the super-dooper consistent arguments, you dodge and weave.

                    14. //No, you keep declaring libertarianism to be internally inconsistent without actually demonstrating that, and then you bitch that libertarians don’t do enough to spoon-feed their arguments to you. And then you bitch more about inconsistency. //

                      I was talking about Jorgensen failing to present clear policy proposals.

                      You got pissed off.

                      What do you want me to do?

                      You’re tantrum isn’t going to make her a more appealing candidate.

                    15. I was talking about Jorgensen failing to present clear policy proposals.

                      Geraje Guzba
                      May.21.2020 at 11:56 am
                      Because a libertarian cannot draw a map from reality to their dreams. They always start off and end in fantasy land, where all the solution are just sitting right there.

                      Geraje Guzba
                      May.21.2020 at 12:23 pm
                      //I have proposed nothing//

                      Libertarianism in a nutshell.

                      Geraje Guzba
                      May.21.2020 at 1:58 pm
                      NAP!

                      The answer for everything. You can just say it, and solutions materialize.

                      How do we get there? Duh! By TALKING about it.

                      Ridiculous.

                      Geraje Guzba
                      May.21.2020 at 12:21 pm
                      That libertarians have no idea what they are talking about or how to turn their fantasies into reality.

                      You are a perfect example.

                      Allow me to be the first to express my apologies at not having recognized your nuanced and rationale criticisms of specific things about Jorgensen.

                    16. Apology accepted.

                      Now hit the construction yard. Your ass crack needs tanning.

                    17. Now hit the construction yard. Your ass crack needs tanning.

                      lol. I love how the elitist always comes out in a Manhattanite, no matter what their knee-jerk political persuasion.

                      You’ve followed me enough to know I’m in construction, but you haven’t the foggiest idea what I do in construction, and for you “construction” is clearly like “farming” to Bloomberg. Just a bunch of monkeys with hammers, right?

                      But in all seriousness, I have heard honest-to-goodness buttcrack-tanned carpenters and plumbers (you know, knuckle-draggers who aren’t smart downtowners like you) make much more coherent arguments and show much better levels of education (real education) than I’ve ever seen from you.

                      But at least you have those muscles from patting yourself on the back.

                    18. I’m poor, underpaid, and I live in the Bronx. I’m a minority.

                      And nobody could miss your tales of woe in the construction industry because you never miss an opportunity to tell people about it, as if anybody gives a shit about your life.

                      Maybe you can start work on that bridge to Libertopia.

                    19. I’m poor, underpaid, and I live in the Bronx. I’m a minority.

                      Yet still a shameless elitist. Maybe you should vote for Biden.

                      And nobody could miss your tales of woe in the construction industry because you never miss an opportunity to tell people about it, as if anybody gives a shit about your life.

                      Maybe you can start work on that bridge to Libertopia.

                      Awww, are we getting frustrated? Because we forgot to stop calling out libertarians for being Utopians when our argument was that we never said that?

                    20. Only fags use the royal we.

                    21. Only fags use the royal we.

                      Is this you admitting that you’re done here?

                    22. Jorgensen is done, certainly. But that was a given.

                    23. “ I’m poor, underpaid, and I live in the Bronx. I’m a minority.”

                      Sounds like you should kill yourself.

                    24. “I’m poor, underpaid, and I live in the Bronx. I’m a minority.”

                      Sounds like you should kill yourself.

                  2. Jorgensen is done, certainly. But that was a given.

                    Your dodging is getting pathetic. I recommend disappearing at this point while you still have some dignity left.

                    1. So you’re saying Jorgensen has a chance? Or, are you just masturbating again?

                    2. So you’re saying Jorgensen has a chance? Or, are you just masturbating again?

                      So are we back to pretending you’re only talking about Jorgensen?

                      What I’m saying is “oh, look, you’re dodging the question again.”

                      Because you’re dodging the question again.

                    3. There’s nothing to dodge, you butthurt little bitch.

                      Jorgensen is clueless. You’re clueless for voting for her. If the LP is drawing people like you into its ranks, that explains nearly everything about why the party, and its candidates, aer completely irrelevant.

                    4. Jorgensen is clueless. You’re clueless for voting for her.

                      So enlighten as to whom the cluefull people such as yourself are voting for.

                      If the LP is drawing people like you into its ranks, that explains nearly everything about why the party, and its candidates, aer completely irrelevant.

                      Deep. Care to take a stand of your own?

                    5. Care to describe a single one of Jorgensen’s position and he plan to make it a reality?

        2. I can, prohibit government from initiating force. How? Pass a 28th amendment that reads, “Government shall not initiate force.” It’s literally that simple.

            1. Wow what a cogent counterargument, you win.

              1. Wait, you were being serious?

                1. 100%. As you know libertarianism is based in the Non Aggression Principle. Technically the NAP applies to individuals and since government is just a group of individuals it should apply to government but people wouldn’t understand that so the best way to deal with it at this point is an amendment which would make it crystal clear and people would accept it.

                  1. //[T]he best way to deal with it at this point is an amendment//

                    Do you understand how the amendment process works?

                    //[W]hich would make it crystal clear and people would accept it.//

                    Nothing about the amendment you suggested was clear, semantically or contextually. I don’t see why people would ever accept something that is vague to the point of uselessness.

                    “Government shall not initiate force” is completely meaningless.

                    1. I said it’s simple not easy.

                      Is English your first language?
                      Initiate: cause to begin
                      Force: coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence

                      When government initiates force we call that tyranny. You don’t support tyranny do you?

                    2. //I said it’s simple not easy.//

                      Okay, now you can fuck off.

                    3. Again not any kind of counterargument.

                    4. Counterarguments require arguments. An argument, in the first place, requires a premise and a conclusion that follows from the premise.

                      You stated a conclusion, and then repeated it, and then repeated it, and then repeated it again with more and more conclusory dressing every time.

                      I have no idea what your premise is, or the facts or assumptions upon which it rests. And, it seems, neither do you.

                    5. You want a premise? It’s immoral to initiate force. You’ve been on this forum for a while now and you don’t know the basics of libertarianism? Usually it’s taken that the people here have an understanding of the philosophy of libertarianism. I didn’t realize I had to spoon feed you.

                    6. You want a premise? It’s immoral to initiate force. You’ve been on this forum for a while now and you don’t know the basics of libertarianism?

                      I think GG’s problem is that he doesn’t understand how you can bring about Utopia without force, and thus he sees libertarianism as an empty philosophy.

                    7. //It’s immoral to initiate force.//

                      And how do you get from that …. to …. prohibiting the government from initiating force?

                    8. //[B]ring about Utopia//

                      Eating all that shit really fucks with your brain, dumbass.

                    9. It’s immoral.

                    10. //It’s immoral.//

                      Do I have to explain the structure of an argument again?

                    11. Do I have to explain the entire philosophy of libertarianism? Humans as sapient beings have a natural right to liberty because we use our minds to survive. The use of physical force negates the power of the mind yada yada yada… You know nothing and you are nothing. Good day sir.

                    12. //Humans as sapient beings have a natural right to liberty because we use our minds to survive.//

                      Autism speaks.

        3. How do we get there? Duh! By TALKING about it.

          I know this sounds ridiculous to you, but that’s how any “getting there” starts. People’s minds have to change before anything else changes. There are a few ways to change people’s minds, including demonstration (monkey see, monkey do) or talking to them.

          1. There are homeless lunatics on my block that are constantly talking about things. They are not changing anybody’s mind about anything. If you are going to champion “taking about it” as a means of achieving electoral success, you’re going to have to provide some details – which is the entire point of my critique of libertarian candidates, in general. They talk a lot, but not a whole lot of it makes any sense because it is largely theoretical.

            Sure, they can talk. But the things they are talking about don’t make any sense politically because they are too abstruse and divorced from reality.

            1. Well, libertarians talking about libertarian ideas is what eventually changed my mind about a lot of things, so it does work to some degree. To “get things done” you need to convince enough people that these ideas are correct. If we can at least get a sizable minority to agree with basic libertarian principles, this can be the beginning of a “movement” for lack of a better term. You need lots of convinced people to start convincing other people that the ideas are right before any real “getting things done” can actually begin.

              I agree that Libertarian candidates should be better and spelling out at least a few concrete plans that they would enact if elected and they should be incremental changes rather than something like, “abolish the IRS, HUD, CIA, build a wall, etc.” If they’re candidates for elected office, they have to be a bit more than advocates and proponents.

              One major problem is way “the public” responds to rhetoric. They don’t tend to respond well to someone talking like a professor. They respond very well to demagoguery. Maybe someone will come up with a good way to demagogue in favor of liberty and make it into some high elected office. We can only hope.

              1. //I agree that Libertarian candidates should be better and spelling out at least a few concrete plans that they would enact//

                I think this should be *the* focus. Sell the result, explain why it is better than other alternatives, and then explain how you can realistically get there. If, after you have done that, questions remain, then you can get expound on the finer theoretical points.

                Libertarians always seem to approach the process in reverse. Theory cannot be the end goal. Take a cue from Team Blue. Nobody can sell “socialism” as a concept, but they can sell it with policy proposals like debt forgiveness, taxing the rich, and free shit and then, when the public is hooked, explain that this is “socialism.”

                1. Sell the result, explain why it is better than other alternatives, and then explain how you can realistically get there.

                  So, you mean, explain what free markets are, why they are superior to controlled markets, and opining that deregulating markets and minimizing government interference in markets is how we achieve free markets?

                  1. Stating conclusions is not an explanation.

                    1. Seriously, what are you looking for? You’re taking libertarians to task for not reciting the entire text of The Road to Serfdom to everyone we meet?

                      Are you really saying that since no one spoon feeds you libertarian philosophy in the comments section to a website therefore it doesn’t exist and therefore we should, what? Vote for Trump because of his super rational and well-laid out arguments for his totally coherent worldview?

                      I know – you’re not talking about anything specific, just your hatred of libertarians for not talking about anything specific.

                    2. //Seriously, what are you looking for?//

                      I am looking for Jo Jorgensen’s policy proposals and a reason to vote for her. I can’t find either.

                    3. I am looking for Jo Jorgensen’s policy proposals and a reason to vote for her. I can’t find either.

                      Well, it’s already apparent that you don’t see libertarian policies as real policies because they don’t force anyone to do anything, and that’s its own argument, but as far as a reason to vote for her, I can only ask you, again:

                      Who are you proposing as the alternative?

                    4. //[B]ut as far as a reason to vote for her, I can only ask you, again:
                      Who are you proposing as the alternative?//

                      Did that make sense in your head?

                    5. //[B]ut as far as a reason to vote for her, I can only ask you, again:
                      Who are you proposing as the alternative?//

                      Did that make sense in your head?

                      I’m going to echo IceTrey’s question: is English not your first language?

                      The word “alternative” refers to some thing “other” than what is being presented. You bitch and bitch and bitch and bitch, and then when I ask “what’s your alternative that you’re offering?” suddenly it’s “no comprende.

                    6. I’m trying to figure out Jorgensen’s policy proposals, and I do not think they are clear and lack specifics.

                      That, for some reason, has sent you into a rage.

                      You’re embarrassing yourself.

                    7. I’m trying to figure out Jorgensen’s policy proposals, and I do not think they are clear and lack specifics.

                      That, for some reason, has sent you into a rage.

                      I’ve seen exactly one comment from you that comes even close to matching that description. The rest is your usual bile about libertarians not being willing to use government to do violence in the name of your interests, or not having adequate plans to bring about your perfect society (since that’s different from Utopia).

                      Is there another libertarian candidate you think articulates the philosophy better? Or are you lying that your problem is with Jorgensen rather than with the philosophy?

                    8. //The rest is your usual bile about libertarians not being willing to use government to do violence in the name of your interests, or not having adequate plans to bring about your perfect society (since that’s different from Utopia).//

                      Never said that. Ever.

                      Are you done with your tantrum?

                    9. Never said that. Ever.

                      *headdesk*

                      When you say “libertarians have no solutions” what do you mean exactly?

                    10. Gun. Head.

                      It’s easier and a lot cleaner.

                    11. Gun. Head.

                      It’s easier and a lot cleaner.

                      Question. Dodged.

                      You are nothing if not predictable.

                    12. Are you saying I have an obligation to answer your questions? How libertarian of you.

                      Fuck off.

                    13. Are you saying I have an obligation to answer your questions? How libertarian of you.

                      Absolutely not. You are free to admit that you have no answers. You can even simply stop responding. No one is forcing you to be here expressing your views.

                    14. //You are free to admit that you have no answers.//

                      Like I said, I am not a libertarian.

                    15. //You are free to admit that you have no answers.//

                      Like I said, I am not a libertarian.

                      This is supposed to explain why you have no answers?

                      I guess it will have to do.

                    16. You got it.

                      Trump is the man.

                    17. You got it.

                      Trump is the man.

                      Actually stating a position you’re ready to defend? Or lying and dodging again?

                    18. Of course I’m lying you fucking idiot. When people call libertarians autists, it is because of autists like you.

                    19. Of course I’m lying you fucking idiot.

                      Okay. So give me real answer.

                    20. I’m voting for Jorgensen.

                2. I think this should be *the* focus.

                  For candidates, yes.

                  Sell the result, explain why it is better than other alternatives, and then explain how you can realistically get there.

                  They sell the result all the time. I think the problem is that the result is so far away from the status quo, any explanation of how to realistically get there will be long and convoluted or sound like a copout. A solution to this would be to sell Step 1 as a result, making it clear that it’s merely a small step on a long road. Step 1 should be doable and something many non-libertarians could agree with.

                  Nobody can sell “socialism” as a concept

                  People do it all the time, but only a small number responds well to this type of “sale”. To get “the public” on board you have to promise free shit, like you say, and/or demagogue. I’m afraid a Libertarian candidate isn’t going to do very well by promising free shit, but they might be able to get through to a few more people by with a little demagoguery. The promise of more freedom has seemed to have found market saturation at this point.

                  1. //I think the problem is that the result is so far away from the status quo, any explanation of how to realistically get there will be long and convoluted or sound like a copout.//

                    Here’s how I look at it: If the explanation of how to “realistically” get a particular result is excessively long and convoluted, chances are it is not a particularly realistic result to aim for in the first place.

                    If the explanation doesn’t make any sense, even to the person doing the explaining, there is a problem.

                  2. “People do it all the time, but only a small number responds well to this type of “sale”. To get “the public” on board you have to promise free shit, like you say, and/or demagogue. I’m afraid a Libertarian candidate isn’t going to do very well by promising free shit, but they might be able to get through to a few more people by with a little demagoguery. The promise of more freedom has seemed to have found market saturation at this point.”

                    Which… kinda means you’re a failure.
                    “My product is awesome. People are stupid for not buying it. I don’t need to change anything about how I present or market it.”

                    1. Libertarians: selling the ideal by telling people they’re voting against their interests

  6. I like Ms. Jorgensen’s message, but I wish everyone would stop using the “immigrants commit fewer crimes than natives.”
    Unless a native leaves every time an immigrant enters, aren’t we just increasing the net number of potential crimes? Or does each new immigrant criminal drive two native criminals out of business?

    1. You are counting felons, not felonies. Sure every immigrant commits a felony entering the US, but since we all commit 3 felonies a day, they have a lot of catching up to do.

    2. Also, crimes per immigrant is concrete, fixed, and the only meaningful metric. More immigration to the ME is A-OK as long as all the immigrants agree to to tossing homos off of rooftops and don’t allow their women to go out in public.

      We need more Venezuelan immigrants in this country so that the American LP can be as wildly successful as the Venezuelan LP has been.

    3. Now apply this logic to gun control.

      1. Immigrants don’t have agency?

  7. //I want to shout from the rooftops that we do not have a free market system in health care and how if we tried free markets, they would work.//

    Well, why not explain **why** it is that we don’t have “free markets” in healthcare? Address the conflict between a free market in healthcare and the health insurance industry. How does she propose resolving the conflict? Legislation? Regulations? Making health insurance illegal?

    What is the plan?

    And, more importantly, how are you going to sell that plan to people who are happy with insurance? How are they going to sell it to others in Congress? What are they willing to compromise on? What is non-negotiable? Fucking crickets, every damn time.

    This is the biggest problem with libertarians. They push vague solutions, but never bother drawing a path or roadmap out of presently existing problems. Why is that? Is it because putting in the work and explaining how we get from Point “A” to Point “B” might make the end results look ridiculous? Or, worse, reveal the means of getting there to be … authoritarian?

    Or, is it because libertarians really don’t have a plan beyond spouting platitudes?

    1. No, there are countless white papers put out over the years.
      You think a 30 second tv ad or 1 minute interview with Fox News is going to allow time to explain?

      1. I’ve read Jorgensen’s positions on her website and it is the same insipid pabulum she spits out in her interview. I don’t think she understands the issues, either – to be frank.

        Libertarians get so defensive about the weakness of their candidates, yet do nothing to address or shore up those weaknesses.

        Yelling “FREEDOM” at people is not a fucking policy. It’s just not, and it is never going to be; and that is why the libertarian party and its candidates are, and will remain, completely irrelevant.

        1. this is called strawman argument. Libertarians do NOT just yell “FREEDOM” at people. Where are you getting this from? You seem delusionally angry at libertarians for valuing freedom. Like most people.

          1. I think Gerjae has a point.

            I voted LP the last two elections, but they are generally lacking in the communications department. Often the argument is “the government is the problem” but there’s no good explanation of it (its often very complex and doesn’t fit in soundbites). You might not think they are “just shouting freedom” but that is definitely how they are perceived.

            Or there’s no migration strategy from old world to new. Ultimately, these are things that a serious political party has to deal with.

            The LP is right on a lot of things, and not very good on getting from point A to point B in a way that won’t frighten the shit out of the layperson. Or they’re seen as the clown car party.

            Again, I’m a voter and at least for a brief Amash moment, donor. But I don’t see how anyone can deny these very real struggles for the LP.

            1. There is a good explanation, government is allowed to initiate force. That’s THE problem. I agree that libertarians and LP candidates are horrible at getting that message across. Mainly I think it’s because like most people they don’t get it.

              1. So, how does a private citizen collect a debt … from a deadbeat debtor … in a society where the government is not permitted to initiate force?

                1. Government can use retaliatory force.

                  1. So the government can use force … against a person, to get them to pony up and pay someone else? What business does the government have butting into private contractual disputes? Free trade? Non-aggression?

                    Fantasy.

                2. @gg I’ve read most of your comments over the last several months… but when you asked this:

                  how does a private citizen collect a debt … from a deadbeat debtor … in a society where the government is not permitted to initiate force?

                  I realized you have never taken more than 5 minutes to read or explore to understand the singular most basic point of libertarianism: contract law is justice served coldly. for everyone.

                  If you aren’t willing to learn something before arguing against it I don’t feel any great compunction to treat with you.

              2. “There is a good explanation, government is allowed to initiate force. That’s THE problem. I agree that libertarians and LP candidates are horrible at getting that message across. Mainly I think it’s because like most people they don’t get it.”

                Yea, because it’s vague as he’ll.
                It’s a slogan that doesn’t communicate anything.
                Maybe give an example of a government that doesn’t “initiate force”?
                It seems like you like to preach to the choir but disdain trying to convert anybody.
                That’s cool. Impotent, but fine.
                You do you

          2. I’m not angry at libertarians for valuing freedom. But “valuing freedom” is not a policy position, and it explains nothing. Like most libertarians, you are resting on “freedom” as general platform while insisting you have something else up your sleeve, while at the same denying that you are proposing anything, apart from valuing freedom, while insisting you are nothing but practical.

            I’m not the delusional one.

        2. I agree in large part; over the years, I’ve heard a lot of handwaving about “Jefferson said….” and slogans such as that. The LP Platform needs a “white paper” arguing the reasoning behind each plank, written by competent experts. Each is probably covered in the literature that takes up many bookshelves, but no one seems to have pulled it together. It is extremely difficult, anyway, for a single candidate to be versed in all the wonkery surrounding every issue that is likely to be raised in a campaign. [Voters certainly don’t expect the major party candidates to be wonks.] Maybe the best solution is to run on just four or five issues and be fully conversant with the pros and cons of the libertarian position.

          1. Not everyone can be a wonk, but when you decide to jump into the fray and shoot for the highest executive office in the land, with no other members of your party holding any seats in Congress, you need to bring more to the table than just rhetoric.

            You should be able to explain clearly what your positions are, how you plan to get there, and how you will handle the opposition (in other words, build a coalition and compromise).

            These libertarian candidates think they’ll just land in the oval office and just steamroll our country into FREEDOM with their constitutional powers.

            That’s never going to happen.

            1. I seriously doubt any of them “think they’ll just land in the oval office” and that’s why they feel no need to go beyond rhetoric. Why come up with a detailed plan when no one is going to listen? Nolan believed political action would give the LP a soapbox. Even in local races that isn’t necessarily so. Worse, I’ve seen races where the LP candidates didn’t even bother to answer the League of Women Voters questionnaire that ends up distributed to voters. Too many poseurs, hobbyists, and introverts quibbling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If every LP member wrote one good letter to the editor every year, that would probably have more same effect than all the quixotic campaigns entered into.

              1. //Why come up with a detailed plan when no one is going to listen?//

                The reason nobody listens is because they don’t bother coming up with detailed plans. I’m all ears. I have been for a while. I was formerly an LP member and donor and I left the party for precisely these reasons. No plans. No details. No chances.

                It’s just posturing, and its pointless.

                //Too many poseurs, hobbyists, and introverts quibbling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.//

                I agree.

                1. The reason nobody listens is because they don’t bother coming up with detailed plans.

                  In stark contrast to the coherent and detailed policy proposals illuminatingly laid out by uber-rationalists Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

                  1. Nobody was talking about Trump or Biden.

                    1. Nobody was talking about Trump or Biden.

                      So who are you talking about? You realize Jesus isn’t running, right?

                    2. //So who are you talking about?//

                      Jo Jorgensen.

                      Fucking insane, isn’t it?

                    3. //So who are you talking about?//

                      Jo Jorgensen.

                      Fucking insane, isn’t it?

                      *facepalm*

                      Yes. You’re talking about how Jorgensen sucks because she has no plan to bring about Utopia unlike ________.

                      Do you understand the question I’m asking you now?

                  2. You’re not asking me questions, you are making an argument and feebly trying to get me to ad lib your premise for you.

                    If you want to make an argument, make the argument.

                    1. My argument is that your argument that libertarians have no plan to bring about Utopia and therefore we shouldn’t vote for them is retarded. Here’s why:

                      Your basic premise, i.e. “libertarians want to bring about Utopia” is false.

                      If you have the basic understanding of logic you keep claiming to exclusively possess, that would render everything downstream of your fundamental premise, i.e. “libertarians want to bring about Utopia,” lacking in validity because of the falseness of your fundamental premise.

                      All the rest of your bloviating about logic means nothing, and just makes you look like a jackass.

                      You’re a Manhattanite, right?

                    2. //My argument is that your argument that libertarians have no plan to bring about Utopia//

                      Yes, that is *your* argument.

                      Not my argument. The only person that keeps bringing up Utopia is you.

                      You’re embarrassing yourself.

                    3. Yes, that is *your* argument.

                      So what’s your complaint about libertarians? You seem to feel libertarians have some fantasy world they want to bring about where magical solutions to every problem happen all by themselves, right?

                      Am I mischaracterizing your argument?

                      Can you explain how that’s different from accusing libertarians of wanting to bring about Utopia?

                      You complain that libertarians don’t have effective “solutions” to some “problems” that you feel we all need to be “solving.” What problems are those and who is it who is offering the logically consistent “solutions” to those problems?

                    4. //Am I mischaracterizing your argument?//

                      Yes.

                      You know you are.

                    5. //Am I mischaracterizing your argument?//

                      Yes.

                      You know you are.

                      So correct me.

                    6. //So correct me.//

                      Jorgensen has not proposed any clear policies and failed to provide details about how she plans to achieve anything as President.

                    7. Jorgensen has not proposed any clear policies and failed to provide details about how she plans to achieve anything as President.

                      So? Why is this a relevant observation? Are you contrasting her with someone, or are you just tossing out absolutisms?

                      And why does that observation have to come chained with dozens of childish attacks and insults toward libertarians and their “inconsistent” philosophy if you nowhere intended to make any claims about whether or not libertarianism is a consistent philosophy and if you didn’t intend to call libertarians impractical fantasists?

                      Because looking up and down this page I see a lot of you insulting libertarians and libertarianism in vague terms, and saying nothing about Jorgensen, really.

                    8. //So? Why is this a relevant observation?//

                      Perhaps it’s not, but you seem awfully interested … and overly emotional about the entire thing.

                      //Because looking up and down this page I see a lot of you insulting libertarians and libertarianism in vague terms, and saying nothing about Jorgensen, really.//

                      Poor reading comprehension will do that to you.

                    9. Poor reading comprehension will do that to you.

                      Dude. We can all see what’s written on the page. It didn’t disappear.

                      But you do you.

                    10. Seeing and comprehending are different things. Didn’t think I’d have to explain that, but okay.

                    11. Seeing and comprehending are different things. Didn’t think I’d have to explain that, but okay.

                      Maybe it’s an NYC dialect thing? When you say “libertarians are delusional and inconsistent fantasists with no plans and a fundamentally flawed philosophy”

                      that translates to

                      “While I respect the basic tenets of libertarian philosophy, I don’t think Jo Jorgensen has laid out a clear path for achieving those goals.”

                      Is that right?

                    12. Both are true.

                    13. Both are true.

                      Then stop pretending you’re only saying one of them. You’re doing a motte-and-bailey here, but you don’t seem to realize it (if I’m being generous).

                      Whenever you get pushback on “libertarians are delusional and inconsistent fantasists with no plans and a fundamentally flawed philosophy” rather than respond, you simply pretend you aren’t saying that, and snap back to “While I respect the basic tenets of libertarian philosophy, I don’t think Jo Jorgensen has laid out a clear path for achieving those goals.”

                      Man up and make the argument you’re claiming that you aren’t making, but just admitted that you are, in fact, making.

                    14. It’s simple.

                      Libertarian philosophy has some merit, considered academically. That merit comes mostly from emotion. Libertarianism is a feel good philosophy.

                      Libertarians that try to make that philosophy work in the real world are largely deluded.

                      It’s a lot like religion.

                      The ideas are nice.

                      In practice, it’s dogshit in every direction.

                      Hope that helped.

                    15. Hope that helped.

                      It helps in the sense that you’ve finally stopped denying that this is the argument you’re making. So, that’s progress.

                      Let me present an analogous argument:

                      Mainstream political philosophy has some merit, considered academically. That merit comes mostly from emotion. Mainstream political philosophy is a feel good philosophy.

                      Mainstream politicians that try to make that philosophy work in the real world are largely deluded.

                      It’s a lot like religion.

                      The ideas are nice.

                      In practice, it’s dogshit in every direction.

                      Oh, wait. You didn’t say jack shit, did you?

                    16. You keep crying about the pristine and pure nature of libertarianism yet cannot explain, even in rudimentary terms, how Jorgensen is going to achieve any of her goals, let alone what her goals ever are.

                      Purity. I get it. Purity, man. The golden rule. The non-aggression principle. Just stick with it. They’ll be feeding you jello through a tube before any of your golden dreams come to fruition (and, they never will).

                    17. You keep crying about the pristine and pure nature of libertarianism yet cannot explain, even in rudimentary terms, how Jorgensen is going to achieve any of her goals, let alone what her goals ever are.

                      Run back to the bailey!

                    18. Bailey’s another libertarian I can’t stand.

                    19. Bailey’s another libertarian I can’t stand.

                      Given up entirely, have we?

                    20. I’m glad you think having the “logical fallacies” page starred in your browser is making you feel better about supporting a candidate with no sensible policy proposals.

                2. I was formerly an LP member.

                  You have never been close to an LP member, nor even lp. You are not being frank with us.

                  Geraje Guzba
                  May.21.2020 at 3:48 pm

                  So, how does a private citizen collect a debt … from a deadbeat debtor … in a society where the government is not permitted to initiate force?

      2. You think a 30 second tv ad or 1 minute interview with Fox News is going to allow time to explain?

        The R’s and D’s have the same issue. It’s why elections never come down to who actually has the better ideas/ positions but who has the better slogans, the catchier platitudes*, and more often than not who comes off as the more “likable” or at least the least evil. And they also have massive numbers of white papers put out by their parties and their various think tanks but no one actually cares about those things except maybe a few nerds. Candidates not having detailed, wonky plans is just business as usual.

        *What the hell are “Hope and Change,” “Yes We Can,” “Make America Great Again,” “I’m With Her,” or whatever the hell Biden’s slogan is/ will be (I’m assuming it will be “I’m not Trump”) if not meaningless platitudes.

        1. *What the hell are

          “Hope and Change,”
          -whatever the hell you want it to be; an empty set; a promise of divine favor to be handed down from on high

          “Yes We Can,”
          -a promise that you, by voting correctly, will bask in the glow of that divine favor; you will be of the elect

          “Make America Great Again,”
          -a call to action; Americans are great, get back to being American; you’ll be encouraged to go be successful and take pride (rather than sjame) in earning that success

          “I’m With Her,”
          -you are one of Her devout and loyal subjexts; you’re a good progressive celebrating female power

  8. Meh why is the LP so stuck on these boilerplate issues. How in the world are they going to convince more than 1% to take a chance when the platform is open borders during a jobs crisis? You are going to take on deficits as if you could seriously get Congress to reduce spending? The LP has no power base with Democrat rats and RINOs in opposition to everything they say.

    1. You are going to take on deficits as if you could seriously get Congress to reduce spending? The LP has no power base with Democrat rats and RINOs in opposition to everything they say.

      That’s why I really don’t get the LP’s seeming obsession with running a vanity presidential campaign every four years. Instead they need more local, state, and congressional candidates and they need to start actually winning some of those races, particularly in congress.

      Even if they don’t win a majority or a super-majority that would allow them to ram through anything they wanted, just getting enough seats so that neither the D’s or the R’s have a majority would at least force them to have to consider their points of view and maybe actually influence policy. Either that or it result in even more power being accrued by the executive and make congress even more irrelevant. Probably the latter, but at least then everyone could see that congress is irrelevant and the Republic is broken.

      1. “That’s why I really don’t get the LP’s seeming obsession with running a vanity presidential campaign every four years. Instead they need more local, state, and congressional candidates and they need to start actually winning some of those races, particularly in congress.”

        It’s rather hypocritical.
        Instead of lots of individuals from the ground up each working to have an impact through influence rather than raw power, the LP seeks the top spot – a collectivist imposition of ideology through sheer power

        1. Where are the libertarian legal associations? Outreach to lawyers, and other professions, to pitch their philosophy within specific contexts?
          Get lawyers, doctors, waiters/waitresses/bartenders, truckers, Christians, etc groups going.
          The LP has no clue whatsoever how to build a movement.
          They think it’s just screaming at waves until they get the infinity gauntlet and snap their fingers.

  9. Jorgensen notes that the Browne/Jorgensen campaign year saw both higher national paid membership growth, and a growth that lasted longer, than the 2016 campaign led by Johnson and Bill Weld.

    I don’t think Weld’s whole “I’m here to vouch for Hillary Clinton” crap towards the end of the campaign helped matters. I’m sure a lot of people who maybe joined the LP hoping for a real alternative to the big two parties were more than a little disappointed to see a party that selected a “goofy stoner” (not that there’s anything wrong with being a goofy stoner) and the walking, talking definition of “Northeastern ‘Never Trump’ RINO” (seriously, they might as well have nominated Mitt Romney for VP). I can’t entirely blame them for leaving the party.

  10. But he got into office and acted like all the others.

    Well… if that were the case, why is the press having a continuous, ongoing, never-ending conniption fit?

  11. Has she ever won a local race? Have any of these people?

    1. Jorgensen is psychology lecturer, and she believes in freedom. What more do you want?

  12. Well, fellows, would you? Vote for her?

  13. Jo Jorgensen’s position on Healthcare:

    “Republican and Democratic policies over the past fifty years are the reason health care has become so expensive. Their latest proposals to ‘fix’ health care will further micromanage your doctors and restrict your access to care while failing to solve the underlying problem. They differ only on whether this should be done by private insurance companies or government bureaucrats. This is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. We can reduce the cost of health care 75% by allowing real price competition, and by substantially reducing government and insurance company paperwork. This will make health care affordable for most Americans, while also reducing the cost of legacy programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA.”

    Is this anything other than complete fluff? What is her plan? And, more importantly, how is she going to achieve it without any allies in Congress?

    1. She’s not wrong, but thats just shitty advertising.
      -reduce regulations – unnecessary regulations increase cost without adding value; find those regulations and eliminate them
      -price transparency – allow docs and hospitals to advertise standard prices for various procedures; you can shop around for an oil change -$25 at BigLube, $40 at LubeMax, $50 at Expressway- why can’t docs do the same for stuff like physicals?
      I’m not gonna do the work for her, but keep it simple. Identify the problem and give a concise, relatable example of your solution.
      Why the hell talk about 75%? She’s exceedingly vague throughout, and decides to get specific with that number? Dumb

      1. //I’m not gonna do the work for her, but keep it simple. Identify the problem and give a concise, relatable example of your solution.//

        Agreed.

        But, she never does it. Maybe at least pick one thing in each policy category, and focus on that.

    2. “Republican and Democratic policies over the past fifty years are the reason health care has become so expensive.”
      -Ok. Maybe name one or two and give an example of how they’ve raised costs? Something like the AMA limiting residencies reduces the supply of docs which decreases the amount of competition and inflates prices?

      “Their latest proposals to ‘fix’ health care will further micromanage your doctors and restrict your access to care while failing to solve the underlying problem. They differ only on whether this should be done by private insurance companies or government bureaucrats.”
      -Such as? Perhaps we can talk about how it’s more central planning and you’d rather have the doc less constrained by prescribed procedure and making more decisions with you?

      “This is the exact opposite of what needs to be done.”
      -Correct. So what needs to be done? You haven’t said that yet.

      “We can reduce the cost of health care 75%”
      -Dumb. Why throw out a specific figure? Because you read in a book it’s what you need to hook someone? It’s not – it’s distracting.

      “by allowing real price competition, and by substantially reducing government and insurance company paperwork. This will make health care affordable for most Americans, while also reducing the cost of legacy programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA.”
      -Annnnnd we’re right back to being super vague. We’re going to reduce costs in this precise amount by doing stuff. Again, she’s not wrong – she’s just terrible at making her case

      1. You can learn from Trump you know.
        Say what you want about “the wall”, but it’s distinct messaging of an idea that can be readily visualized.
        You hate regulations?
        Me too!
        Let’s look back all the way to Brexit – 5 years ago now.
        You know whats something that I, an American, still remember about it?
        The bananas.
        The EU regulated whether bananas could be imported based on their curvature or some shit.
        Thats incredibly stupid, and it’s easy to relate to how absurd an idea that is. And it’s not that the specific regulation is that important, but that it became representative of domineering EU bureaucracy.
        It was a hook. Simple, relatable, and ludicrous.
        Is leaving the EU really that scary when they’re buying themselves with determining the proper curve of a fucking banana?
        Pretty sure we could find an example of something like that in the thousands of pages of US Healthcare regulations…

  14. Jo Jorgensen acknowledges that health care is important but really seems to have no plan. Free market health care says to me that you view health care as a commodity. People are therefore entitled to health care to the degree they can afford health care, and this is not acceptable. You may not like Medicare for All, I don’t, but it is a plan and I can understand it. Ms. Jorgensen wants to stop M4A, then she needs a plan and she need to explain it. She just waves her hands and say the free market will provide. Because in a free market the money will flow from vaccinations for kids to ED pills for old white men with money.

    1. No plan might be the way to go.

      Thus far every plan has washed up on the beach.

      Today the entire medical industry is in serious trouble. Hospital beds are empty, elective procedures are not happening, workers at all levels except for emergency, and critical care are on furlough.

      It is not lack of resources. Perhaps a whole new way of thinking about and delivering medical care is on the way.

  15. Almost 200 comments but at least 150 of them between two people with the message fuck off? I was hoping for intelligent conversation when I subscribed to Reason. Sigh.

Please to post comments