MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Libertarian Gary Johnson Comes Out Against Carbon Taxes, Mandatory Vaccines

Libertarian Party candidate clarifies positions at New Hampshire rally.

Does Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson support a carbon tax, a specific levy on fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases and contribute to climate change? As Ronald Bailey noted here a few days ago, the answer seemed to be yes. In a CNBC interview, Johnson

suggested that a carbon tax might be a "very libertarian proposal" to address the open access commons problem of climate change. Johnson is tentative, saying that he is "open" to considering a carbon tax. He specifically notes that a carbon tax would be a simple comprehensive way to replace all sorts of clunky expensive top-down centralized regulations and subsidies that aim to limit carbon dioxide emissions.

In a rally yesterday in Concord, New Hampshire, Johnson explicitly distances himself from a carbon tax. He also reiterates his position that vaccines (presumably for childhood diseases) are effective but should not be mandatory absent a large-scale pandemic or disease outbreak.

This footage is a trimmed YouTube video from a rally captured by WMUR (for footage of the entire event, go here).

If any of you heard me say I support a carbon tax...Look, I haven't raised a penny of taxes in my politicial career and neither has Bill [Weld]. We were looking at—I was looking at—what I heard was a carbon fee which from a free-market standpoint would actually address the issue and cost less. I have determined that, you know what, it's a great theory but I don't think it can work, and I've worked my way through that.

And I support a person's right to choose, so when it comes to vaccinations we should be able to make the decision whether we want to vaccinate our kids or not. I choose to vaccinate my kid and you never say never. Look, in the case of a zombie apocalypse taking over the United States, and there is a vaccine for that, as president of the United States, you might find me mandating that vaccine.

In April 2014, Reason magazine hosted a libertarian debate on whether vaccines, including MMR and other child-related vaccines, should be mandatory. Read that here.

Hat tips: Erick Sturrock and Mark Bozeck

Updated: The Johnson campaign sends this "definitive statement" on vaccinations:

Today, there are no federal laws mandating vaccinations, and that is as it should be. No adult should be required by the government to inject anything into his or her body.

Each of the 50 states has varying vaccination requirements for children, consistent with their responsibilities for public education and providing a safe environment for students who are required to attend school under state law. Likewise, each of the 50 states has varying opportunities for parents to seek exemptions from vaccination requirements for legitimate reasons of personal belief. That, too, is as it should be.

And while I personally believe some states' 'opt-out' provisions are not adequate in terms of personal freedom, those laws and requirements are appropriately beyond the scope of the federal government—including the President.

Clearly, if and when a major outbreak of a communicable disease occurs that crosses state lines or sweeps the nation, then appropriate levels of government have an obligation to act—and act rapidly. As President, it would be irresponsible to rule out scientifically and medically sound responses to such an emergency.

Government has a responsibility to help keep our children and our communities safe. At the same time, government has a responsibility to preserve individual freedom. Vaccination policies must respect both of those responsibilities. I personally believe in vaccinations, and my children were vaccinated. But it is not for me to impose that belief on others.

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.

  • Jerryskids||

    clarifies positions

    Riiiiiight. Go get help, Lassie, the tractor clarified right over on top of grandpa again.

  • WTF||

    Just like Trump "clarified" his position on deportations. Also known as "backtracking" and "waffling".

  • prolefeed||

    Sometimes, the staff has to take their boss away in private and tell them to quit being retards, and then they issue a "clarification". If the clarification is a good change in position for the libertarian message, then great. Be happy the LP candidate is back on message.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    But Johnson isn't libertarian. He's fiscally conservative and socially tolerant.

  • Gary T||

    Isn't it great?

    But whereas Trump does it as a matter of course, and rarely corrects himself, GJ rarely does it and when he does it is to be more in line with lib'n philosophy.

    Some of these positions really just can't be libertarian, but he comes from the 'normal' world of politics, so those are his knee-jerk first responses.

  • Rasilio||

    Whats more is that he actually gives a reasoned rationale for the flip

  • ||

    This, IMO, is the key between the three candidates. Once you dig them out of the soil and peel away the stinky onion layers, there's at least some nutritive vegetation left in the GayJay campaign.

    Even then, there's little a pretty strong guarantee that the rest of the FedGov wouldn't fuck up any/all implementation of his principles (not GayJay's fault exactly but makes a vote for Almanian seem just as reasonable).

  • ThomasD||

    Different grades of compost???

    Strong argument.

  • Gary T||

    Isn't it great?

    But whereas Trump does it as a matter of course, and rarely corrects himself, GJ rarely does it and when he does it is to be more in line with lib'n philosophy.

    Some of these positions really just can't be libertarian, but he comes from the 'normal' world of politics, so those are his knee-jerk first responses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Rush can't stop laughing about Trumps waffling

    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....flip-flop/

  • The Last American Hero||

    Who cares, Geddy isn't allowed to vote.

    Oh, the other Rush. Never mind.

  • Delius||

    It's important to distinguish between mandatory vaccines and required vaccines. The former is "everyone gets them under threat of fine", i.e. how Obamacare was foisted upon us. The latter is "children must be vaccinated in order to attend public schools", like California SB277. Even strong pro-vaccination proponents such as Gorski are not in favor of mandatory vaccination, but requiring vaccination for schools is completely reasonable.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    And if the school itself is mandatory?

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Well, that's a separate issue, but I think you'll find most people who object to mandatory vaccination don't have the same issues with requiring vaccines for children attending a public school so long as there are avenues for parents to avoid the compulsion. In this case, filing for an exemption or attending an alternative school would work. But yeah, in the current environment that means that the only people who can make a choice are people with the money for private school or the time for homeschooling, which sucks.

  • prolefeed||

    And if the school itself is mandatory?

    No one is required to attend a public school, even though a lot of progs would wet themselves over the prospect. You can always opt out with home schooling, private schools, etc.

    That being said, I'm against mandatory education laws.

  • ||

    That being said, I'm against mandatory education laws.

    Even if you aren't specifically against education laws, certainly the idea of in-person education regarding the 3 R's is a bit antiquated.

  • Gary T||

    I always thought this was a great legal run-around to the mandatory school thing.
    Just not have your kids vaccinated (or vaccinate them and just say you didn't), then you have an automatic waiver of required attendance.

  • kbolino||

    Under our current system, that's more likely to get your kids abducted by CPS than to get out of mandatory schooling.

  • Ron||

    The problem is they are also requiring vaccination for HPV which can only be transmitted through sexual contact and that vaccine is only good for one of the rarest of HPV,s . Many people are not happy about that.

  • The Fusionist||

    By adopting a new position every day, Johnson makes sure that he's qualified to be President of *all* the people, not just those who agree with him.

  • Trshmnstr, green and mangy||

    *golf clap*

  • Rational Exuberance||

    It's the strategy that has pushed Hillary into the frontrunner position. Why shouldn't other candidates copy it?

  • Glide||

    Shoot, it's nice that he's trying to be libertarian today but it's a little weird that it took that much gum flapping to reach this point.

    Johnson seems to have a campaign tic where he "will consider" every idea presented to him whether it's good or terrible. That's theoretically fine as an actual executive as long as he reaches the right conclusion, but it sure doesn't make a good debate technique.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    By the by, Gillespie, I'm really curious how many outraged emails y'all got after Bailey declared there was no principled libertarian case against mandatory vaccination.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Not enough, I'd guess.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    I still can't believe there are people claiming to be libertarians and simultaneously advocating that the state use force to compel people to have preventative medical procedures. I can't think of something less opposed to the concept of liberty than the state violating the sanctity of a person's body. To the best of my knowledge even prisoners in the US aren't forced to be vaccinated.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    What's even worse is that Baily isn't just wrong on the libertarian political angle, the Reason "science correspondent" is wrong on the basic science.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Exactly. And the idea of parents suing other parents over disease transmission requires that the courts be able to sort out who infected whom, something which is literally impossible to resolve. As I stated yesterday, this involves essentially proving a negative: that the infected child did not acquire the bug through any other vector.

    The only way I can see that happening is through the institution of something even more vile, and that is mandatory genetic registration, and I'm not even sure that would be sufficient.

    Can a persons DNA fingerprint even be used to track transmission of germs? I don't think so, but even if it could we'd be looking at mandatory genetic registration for all citizens.

    Can you imagine what a shitshow that would become?

    Jesus, Ron.

  • some guy||

    the Reason "science correspondent" is wrong on the basic science.

    Citation needed.

  • ||

    Citation needed.

    Pretty much every fifth article where he says "There are only two ways to solve the problem of public commons..." and then proceeds to espouse the "one" solution that requires his brand or level of state intervention.

    Either he's wrong and there are lots and lots of solutions with varying degrees of public/private participation or he's lying. If you wait 1-2 weeks, he should publish another.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    It wasn't just the outraged emails. It was the cancelled subscriptions and the threat of cancellations.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    If he had simply said "Here is how I see the libertarian case for mandatory vaccines" his statement would have been much more palatable. I probably would have disagreed with him, perhaps vigorously, but I can see reasonable libertarians having reasonable disagreement about this. His statement however was close minded and demonstrated a lack of imagination I think is necessary to challenge hypotheses with the scientific method. It really makes me doubt his judgment when it comes to presenting other things as "Mr-Science-Libertarian-Guy".

  • robc||

    Bailey must be pissed today.

  • ||

    Not just on the vaccines but the carbon taxes.

  • robc||

    Exactly. Johnson should say that he doesnt believe in man made global warming and complete the trifecta.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Whyfor you hate RB?

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    It's the hill, dude.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    One fake libertarian deserves another.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Bailey was fired from the Johnson campaign yesterday.

    Afterward, Johnson "clarified" his positions.

  • The Fusionist||

    Put vaccines in your cakes and maybe Johnson won't force you to bake them for people you don't want?

  • AlmightyJB||

    So he flipped then flopped then flipped again.

  • ||

    Sounds as though he hasn't really pondered certain issues from a libertarian perspective, eh?

  • WTF||

    The political definition of "Clarified".

  • Tundra||

    The new theme song for the campaign!

  • SIV||

    Just assume when you disagree with GayJay he's telling the truth and when you agree he's LYING.

  • SugarFree||

    As opposed to the flailing reversals your candidate is know for.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    The North Korean judge gave him a 9.9.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Goddmit, Johnson is like that hot girl that toys with your feelings. One day she is all smiles and the next day you get the cold shoulder.

  • The Last American Hero||

    No, he's like the cute girl that may or may not have an amazing rack but whose wardrobe choices give you conflicting data depending on which day of the week it is. And since your sorry ass is never getting in there anyways, it really is sort of irrelevant.

  • paranoid android||

    Clearly, the ability to consider reasoned arguments and change your mind about previously held positions is simply an unacceptable attribute for a political candidate. We all know that the real libertarians can deduce the correct policy positions on any given issue through pure incontrovertible reason--that's why we agree on everything all the time!

  • Trshmnstr, green and mangy||

    the ability to consider reasoned arguments and change your mind about previously held positions is simply an unacceptable attribute for a political candidate

    I think the ability to have done so before becoming your party's presidential candidate is good. Changing horses midstream when people are trying to figure out what the hell you stand for is bad.

  • prolefeed||

    Changing your positions after you've been told in private that you fucked up and went off the libertarian message is a good thing.

    Unless you believe that all statist positions must be maintained by the LP candidate after they have the statism pointed out to them.

  • Trshmnstr, green and mangy||

    Unless you believe that all statist positions must be maintained by the LP candidate after they have the statism pointed out to them.

    yes, because there's certainly no third option of "getting all this shit ironed out before you become the LP's candidate"

    Like I said below, I'd have a bunch more sympathy if this were some esoteric issue. It isn't. GJ is speaking libertarianism as if it's a second language for him, and he's getting excoriated by his base for it. The fact that his initial reaction on basic issues like vaccines and carbon taxes is to break statist tells a lot about what's going to happen (in unicorn-land) when he's in the presidency.

  • some guy||

    Look, it's obvious at this point that Johnson is not trying to become the first libertarian president. He's just trying to become president and I'm okay with that because he would be so much better than any of the other candidates. Better a waffling libertarianish centrist than a habitually lying felon or a habitually lying blowhard.

  • The Last American Hero||

    It's worth noting that this happens with other parties, and not just in this wacky election. Reagan was detested by a big swath of Team Red, and my die-hard Team Blue parents have held their nose and pulled the lever for any number of Team Blue candidates over the years. In fact, the only 2 they've actually liked were Bill Clinton (both times) and Obama (first time). You don't always get everything on your checklist in a Presidential Candidate if you want to win more than 1% of the popular vote.

  • GILMORE™||

    you fucked up and went off the libertarian message

    ""BUT THAT WAS THE PLAN?!?""
    /Gary Johnson

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Nicely said.

    It's a problem that we've evolved a society full of people who are never wrong. Perhaps even the problem. No one is perfect. We are all going to get the wrong answer with tiresome, frustrating regularity. People learn more from their failures than their successes, but first one must admit that failure occurred.

    Part and parcel of that concept is that there must exist space within which it is acceptable to be wrong. Otherwise we merely incentivize a continued refusal to recognize where the error in judgment occurred, where our access to facts were insufficient. We stifle the opportunity to correct the error.

    Let's stop punishing people for realizing they made a boo-boo and trying to fix it.

  • Trshmnstr, green and mangy||

    Let's stop punishing people for realizing they made a boo-boo and trying to fix it.

    Here's the thing. It's not like Gary Johnson is making boo-boos on some esoteric bit of foreign policy. He's fucking up libertarianism 101, and only retreating when he gets a bunch of pushback from his base. I don't care about fixing boo-boos if it's a small thing that reasonable people could get wrong. I do care about the LP candidate for president not knowing shit about how his half-cocked opinions (don't) line up with libertarianism. Carbon tax and mandatory vaccines? I guess mandatory trigger warnings are gonna be next? I mean, seriously... to flip flop on a carbon tax and mandatory vaccines? This is basic stuff.

  • Bra Ket||

    He's fucking up libertarianism 101, and only retreating when he gets a bunch of pushback from his base.

    You really think he gives a shit about what actual libertarians think?

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    He's not a libertarian, so why should he care? He's socially tolerant and fiscally conservative.

  • some guy||

    Exactly. Being a libertarian gets you 1% of the vote and, if you're lucky, mention as an "also ran" in the fine print. Being libertarian gets you ignored. By not striking these hard libertarian positions that run strongly against the current norm he will hopefully be able to make himself seem a reasonable alternative to what Trump and Clinton are pushing.

    Or maybe the country will continue to divide itself sharply on arbitrary partisan lines. Who knows.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    I, however, will vote Calvin Coolidge.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    He's fucking up libertarianism 101...


    I completely agree with this. It's why Johnson/Weld do not have my vote, and likely never will. I don't vote for the lesser statist evils.

    But I shall not accuse and call "Flip-flopping!" when someone figures out their previous understood position was unfortunate. The ability to correct one's self is, in my extremely humble opinion, the best indicator of intelligence in our species and must be preserved, and preferably encouraged.

  • Trshmnstr, green and mangy||

    But I shall not accuse and call "Flip-flopping!" when someone figures out their previous understood position was unfortunate. The ability to correct one's self is, in my extremely humble opinion, the best indicator of intelligence in our species and must be preserved, and preferably encouraged.

    I definitely see your point and agree with it. My issue isn't with the change in opinion as much as the horrifying inclination GJ has to go full statist on his first-take of an issue.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Yeah. That's exactly my issue with him too. How did Tarran say it the other day? Not a libertarian, but a statist who believes the velvet-clad iron hand of government ought to be wielded lightly? I ought to have bookmarked that, it was a remarkable assessment.

  • Trshmnstr, green and mangy||

    I like that! Good one, Tarran!

  • Bra Ket||

    Sounds rather like the old minarchist-anarchist debate. Or have we purged all the minarchists by now?

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Wielded lightly or Welded lightly?

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    That's what Hamster probably won't vote GJ.

  • DOOMco||

    It is a light hand of statism.
    I for one can live with that, seeing the alternatives. I'd hope we can show people that there is even less intrusion in our political ideology.
    And push johnson on enough issues that matter to keep him in the LP camp.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Maybe Johnson was stoned when he said it.

  • Meletaeus||

    Exactly. And what has to be going through your head to call Hillary Clinton "a wonderful public servant?" Most people on the left don't even believe that, they just want to beat Trump. I mean, seriously, how do those words slip from a person's mouth?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    That same charity is applied to non-lp candidates, right?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I'm not sure what you're driving at here, except that you appear to be inferring things I've not stated. I could be wrong about that, though.

    Sure. In fact, I am trying to apply that concept even to people who aren't running for president. I don't always attain perfection. Sad!

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Only the dead ones.

  • creech||

    Even many of the people commenting here have acknowledged that another person's comments have changed their mind about an issue. It happens all the time in business: the boss has one outlook and his managers manage to convince him another way is better. No president has ever had all the answers (maybe Jefferson is an exception) so naturally he holds staff meetings where various viewpoints are presented. Campaigns force the candidate to answer "what would you do about so and so" and there are so many "so and sos" that one cannot always know the answer that he or she would arrive at after contemplation, consultation, and thinking about the consequences.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    That's because we're super-smart. Obnoxious at times but always super-smart.

    Even Popehat says so.

  • Trshmnstr, green and mangy||

    Well, now who knows what his positions are. Much like Trump, you have to elect Johnson to find out what his true positions are.

    Forgive me for not being all rah-rah about TEAM YELLOW.

  • Tundra||

    Team Mellow, man.

  • Zeb||

    The way I see it, he's definitely not going to be elected, so you might as well just imagine that his true positions are the ones you would prefer.

  • Trshmnstr, green and mangy||

    Sounds good, I'll imagine that while I sit on my couch and eat Bugles during election day.

  • robc||

    I figure better a candidate who flip flops with 1 position I like than candidates who flip flop between 2 awful positions.

  • KerryW||

    Wrong side of the color wheel, it's Team Purple (Purple Pac, etc.)

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    The butthurt in this thread makes my heart smile.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Not as much as the hypocrisy.

  • SugarFree||

    The hypocrisy was always baked into this whole thing. The same commenters that are screeching about Johnson not being a pure and hardened libertarian were the same ones defending incrementalism when they are telling us to hold our noses and vote for some GOP asshole.

    This is all about the rage generated in Republicans when libertarians refuse to stay on the GOP plantation.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    The same commenters that are screeching about Johnson not being a pure and hardened libertarian were the same ones defending incrementalism when they are telling us to hold our noses and vote for some GOP asshole.


    You want to run that one by me again, there, broheim?

  • SugarFree||

    When advocating for a libertarianish GOP candidates, certain commenters argue that baby steps are fine, incrementalism the the best thing evar! But when an LP candidate might pull votes away from Trump, all of a sudden those very same people are demanding a hardline stance of libertarian purity.

    I'm saying the underlying message is always VOTE GOP.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Is that like BUY COKE during the movie intermission?

  • ||

    Which concession stand sells drugs at the movies?

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    The one with the smiling Richard Pryor

  • Hamster of Doom||

    When advocating for a libertarianish GOP candidates, certain commenters argue that baby steps are fine, incrementalism the the best thing evar! But when an LP candidate might pull votes away from Trump, all of a sudden those very same people are demanding a hardline stance of libertarian purity.


    Oh, sure. Like that video that HM shared the other day shows, humans are horrible at recognizing their bias.

    I'm growing toward the theory that a fair number* aren't doing it from sheer inborn assholery though. They just can't see it, any more than you or I can when it's our turn (and mark my words, we do it too). The former position made sense to them. So does this one, for a different set of reasons.

    Finding a way to spotlight the bias so it's visible to its owner is very difficult, but it's also the only effective means I've ever found to change a position rooted in unseen bias.

    * Perhaps even mos- ahahaha, no, the cynicism won. Hell is other people for a reason.

  • Guy Behind the Guy, Jr.||

    Sugarfree knows, HoD. He just knows. He's a Yokel Whisperer.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    I thought he was the Goober Whisperer.

  • Trshmnstr, green and mangy||

    This is all about the rage generated in Republicans when libertarians refuse to stay on the GOP plantation.

    You mean that GOP plantation of religious liberty, freedom of association, non-mandatory vaccination, gun rights,and no carbon taxes?

  • SugarFree||

    OK, Johnson's not perfect. Squishy Republicans make terrible Libertarian Party candidates. What's the alternative in this shitshow for someone that still feels compelled to vote?

  • Swiss Servator||

    Almanian!/Cthlhu

    Maybe SMOD '16

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Vote Calvin Coolidge. The dead can't hurt you.

  • GILMORE™||

    What's the alternative in this shitshow for someone that still feels compelled to vote?

    HILLARY

    EMBRACE DOOM

  • Trshmnstr, green and mangy||

    What's the alternative in this shitshow for someone that still feels compelled to vote?

    There isn't one... you hold your nose and vote for the least shit-covered candidate. That's what I did the last 2 election cycles, and yet I was still covered in shit at the end.

    I'm not trying to convince you not to vote, because I'm not entirely sure I'm okay with not voting. However, this election cycle has made it much easier for me to sit out a turn.

  • Meletaeus||

    You may not want to hear it, but Trump. Obviously, he's not a libertarian either, more an authoritarian douchebag, but without the congress and the courts to support him, his presidency would be the most libertarian in effect. A whole lot of impotent bluster is preferable to the alternative.

    If you're going to vote for the least of three evils, you might as well vote for the least of the two, who actually have a chance. Or write in Ron Paul.

  • SteveMexico||

    Except there have been fairly libertarian GOP candidates to choose from the last three elections. Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 and Rand Paul in 2016. Almost every "deviation" Ron and Rand Paul had were either on issues that libertarians disagree on or when he gave a convoluted answer that could still be interpreted as libertarian.

    Gary Johnson on the other hand gets basic issues wrong. And it isn't just the carbon tax and mandatory vaccinations. It is his general lack of respect for property rights.

  • BYODB||

    "And while I personally believe some states' 'opt-out' provisions are not adequate in terms of personal freedom, those laws and requirements are appropriately beyond the scope of the federal government—including the President."


    *standing ovation*


    Here is a great example of why I'll be voting for GayJay, even though he's not a model Libertarian. The fact he even says this is kind of a minor miracle in todays political environment. I don't know if he means it in his heart of hearts, but I trust this guy by orders of magnitude more than the alternatives.

  • ||

    Yup, the only way he could've done it better, IMO. Is if he'd said something like 'compelling national or humanitarian interest' regarding 'major outbreak' and 'across state lines'. The Spanish Flu spreading across the nation and killing people faster than people can be informed and/or vaccines can be produced is one thing. The sniffles being passed from Virginia to Maryland and Delaware during flu season is a different thing entirely.

    But, yes, an exceptionally decent stance where he is and especially among his peer group.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    We won! The Commentariat WON!

    Take THAT, Ron Bailey!

    HAHAHAHAHA!

  • Hamster of Doom||

    What do we want? THE FREEDOM TO INFECT INJECT OUR NEIGHBORS!


    Fixed.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    RIght, and who the fuck are these "Top Commenters" anyway? They look like plants, most likely from the company trying to sell this shit to reason. You ever notice that you never see them in the regular comments?

    Fuck that whole setup.

  • Longtobefree||

    So if Johnson & Co are not "pure" enough for you, will you vote for Trump, Clinton, or whats-her-name?
    This is politics, not a philosophy class. Take what there is you can live with, and then go for more.
    That approach got the socialists control of the country and 25% or so of the economy, didn't it?

  • Trshmnstr, green and mangy||

    That approach got the socialists control of the country and 25% or so of the economy, didn't it?

    I would argue that the socialists' takeover of the education and media industries got them that. As Andrew Breitbart said, culture informs politics, not the other way around. Socialists aren't winning elected office in spite of the culture, they're doing so because of the culture.

    You can't elect liberty loving candidates when we live in a culture of authoritarianism.

  • Sevo||

    I'ma vote for the felonious hag, just 'cause Johnson's kilt isn't the right tartan!

  • Bubba Jones||

    Parents wary of HPV vaccination requirements, study finds

    According to the research, 21% of parents said they support laws mandating HPV vaccination as a school-entry requirement, but that number jumped to 57% if the laws were to include "opt-out" provisions.

    http://www.fiercepharma.com/va.....tudy-finds

  • ||

    Considering how ham-handedly the requirements were intiated (only for girls!), it should come as zero surprise. Like saying you'll elminate Zika by only vaccinating pregnant women.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    Good. He's got my vote back. He was starting to lose me there.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Libertarian Gary Johnson Comes Out Against Carbon Taxes, Mandatory Vaccines
    Libertarian Party candidate clarifies positions at New Hampshire rally.

    This fool, LP presidential candidate, Gary Johnson has no concept of why carbon taxes are so important. First, it relieves the unwashed masses of their excess capital so the ruling elites can further pad their bank accounts and those of their cronies. There is no such thing as an unnecessary tax as any good socialist will tell you. Indeed, the prudent and enlightened ones will tell anyone that it would be best that all the little people should give all their money to their obvious betters enslaving them. However, that day has yet to come, but it will. Be rest assured our socialist sociopaths are working diligently on that wonderful political concept. Secondly, taxing carbon will only cut down on consumption on gasoline, diesel, etc. Slowing down traffic is a wonderful idea since so much of our food, medicine, etc is carried by trucks. The people need to go on a diet anyway, and a food free diet has always worked out the best for the collective as evidenced in Stalin's Ukraine, Mao's PRC, and contemporary Venezuela. Plus, raising carbon taxes will accelerate the demise of such nefarious capitalist enterprises as trucking, car sales, and a host of other evil free trade businesses. Therefore, we should embrace the wonderful idea of carbon taxing if we are to further the Glorious People's Revolution.

  • Bodica Slayer of Woodchip||

    Quit lying about Johnson's position, goober.

  • David Aaron||

    Gary Johnson DOES support a Carbon Tax, he just doesn't know it.
    The Fair Tax taxes consumption, and consumption correlates with carbon.

    Ted Cruz supports it as well, as do 50+ congressman, all Republican.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Alright I'm going to rise in defense of GJ on this one. I don't read his initial statement as a wholehearted endorsement of a carbon tax only that it "might be" a libertarian solution. On studying the issue he's reached the conclusion that it isn't viable. Fair enough. I'm much more disturbed that he seems to completely buy into the whole idea that humans can somehow break, and then fix, the earths climate. Perhaps on reflection he'll reach a different conclusion.
    It would have been nice if the LP had nominated a candidate who had actually thought through the issues of the day and could articulate a libertarian response. GJ is not there yet. But I like him a little more today than I did yesterday.

  • Locris||

    Am I too early? Where's Michael Hihn?

  • Hihn's Cognitive Dissonence||

    Don't worry, my master will be here soon to corpse fuck the shit outta this thread. Ya know; call everyone Paulista goobers, site a Cato survey, and declare himself winner and still to ONLY true libertarian on the comment thread.

  • Big2tha_E||

    Because FEES! Oh, I get it. Fees are not taxes and man-made global warming is definitely a real thing. Yup. All clarified for me. Hey, what's Austin up to?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online