Gary Johnson for President

[gavinfielder]

A vote for Hillary would be disreputable. A vote for Trump would be dishonorable. Do I agree with the Libertarians on everything? No. But I can vote for Johnson and Weld with a clear conscience.

We're of a mind. I'd be willing to vote for Johnson if he had a realistic chance of preventing both Clinton and Trump. I've seen the poll news. It's nothing to celebrate over yet, but if he can break the 15% ceiling and get on the national debate stage this could be something to consider.

The no-270-to-House-appointee scenario isn't great--I really don't like elections not mattering. But I'd like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump less. There's too much at stake in this election to vote for either of them, so I'll take any way out I can get.

 

[azgreg]

 

[MTAtech]

Because the libertarian notion that government shouldn't do anything, in the face of many-many problems and inequities, is particularly stupid. Over every other principle, libertarians believe in an unregulated free market, because in their view, it is the most efficient system to deliver goods and services.

So, if an unregulated free market is the most efficient system to deliver goods and services to as many as possible, why is it that it hasn't evolved anywhere, anytime in the world?

The reason is that an unregulated free market is NOT the most efficient system. Why? Because under such as system sellers have the ability and the incentive to provide inferior or even dangerous products in the marketplace. The libertarian retort is that once consumers know that these products are inferior the seller will lose all business. However, it requires that consumers have this information and what will happen is that if consumers must research everything they buy, instead of focusing on their own business and affairs, that's where the efficiency is lost. A consumer would have to become an expert in every facet of purchasing decisions they'll have no time for anything else.

In addition, there is no provision for externalities, such as environmental protection. Industries have a no incentive to protect the common property. In fact, they have an incentive to shoulder their costs onto the public at large.

But all of this flies in the face of history. We already have abundant historical examples of how an unregulated free market leads to consumer abuse; labor abuse; safety problems -- such as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire; environmental disasters, etc. We have regulations on miner safety because prior to these regulations miners were considered expendable and not worthy, by their employers, to warrant the investment in protective measures.

During the early part of the 20th Century companies tried to sell canned tainted meat. That's why Teddy Roosevelt moved to regulate food. During the 1940s and 50s drugs appeared on the market that caused birth defects.

Simply, an unregulated free market doesn't work. Even Adam Smith, the father of capitalism acknowledged this:

From the Wealth of Nations:

Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But these exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments…[T]he obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.

 

[cpgrad08]

I will be voting for Johnson this year. There is a good chance for him to make into the debates later this year. If he does it would be a good chance to show people they do not have to be slaves to the two party system.

 

[JumpinJack]

I was disappointed to learn that he's a Libertarian (aka---a no-government Republican). He wants to privatize Social Security, doesn't believe in governing (how can he govern, if he doesn't believe in governing?), and is a "you're on your own" person. Not far from Paul Ryan?

He may be a more acceptable Republican establishment candidate, but not for me, an Independent, sorry to say.

 

[Socrates1]

A vote for Hillary would be disreputable. A vote for Trump would be dishonorable. Do I agree with the Libertarians on everything? No. But I can vote for Johnson and Weld with a clear conscience.

Gary Johnson-Bill Weld 2016 Libertarian ticket offers 'third way' in ...

johnson-bill-weld-2016-li...

The Libertarian Party put forward Sunday the strongest presidential ticket in its history, throwing down the gauntlet in an election that has the two major parties poised to nominate divisive candidates with soaring unfavorability ratings.
Delegates to the Libertarian National Convention chose in separate votes a pair of former Republican governors — New Mexico’s Gary Johnson and Massachusetts’ William Weld — despite objections from party loyalists who booed them as “failed Republicans” and questioned their commitment to party principles.
Mr. Johnson won the party’s presidential nomination on the second ballot with 55.8 percent of the delegate vote, giving him a second shot at the presidency after winning about 1.72 million votes as the party’s candidate in 2012.

While Mr. Johnson’s nomination was all but assured, much less certain was whether the delegation would warm up to Mr. Weld, who joined the party two weeks ago and had been denounced by critics as “Libertarian lite.”
After squeaking onto the ticket with 50.8 percent on the second ballot, Mr. Weld assured the crowd that he would adhere to Libertarian principles while running a race that he said would appeal to both Republican and Democratic voters unhappy with their parties’ nominees.

Libertarian vice presidential candidate Bill Weld (right) speaks with Joe Hunter, communications ... more >
“This is a national ticket,” Mr. Weld told the crowd at the Rosen Centre Hotel in Orlando, Florida.

President of your debate club ? :lamo

 

[Abbazorkzog]

If no candidate gets 270, then the vote goes to the House of Representatives with each state having one vote. Since the Republicans control the most state delegations and still will after the election, even if the Democrats were to take the House, it would be up to the Republican Representatives to pick. It is conceivable that they might pick Gary Johnson, a former Republican governor over Donald Trump, a businessman. Imagine the howls from the Democrats because Hillary R Clinton would really have no shot if the House were deciding it.

Mother of God that would be the most incredibly amazing awesome scenario in this (likely) horrific Lesser-Of-2-Evils scenario that's staring us in the eyes.
Please God let this happen! #NeverHillaryORTrump!

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

A vote for Hillary would be disreputable. A vote for Trump would be dishonorable. Do I agree with the Libertarians on everything? No. But I can vote for Johnson and Weld with a clear conscience.

Gary Johnson-Bill Weld 2016 Libertarian ticket offers 'third way' in ...

johnson-bill-weld-2016-li...

The Libertarian Party put forward Sunday the strongest presidential ticket in its history, throwing down the gauntlet in an election that has the two major parties poised to nominate divisive candidates with soaring unfavorability ratings.
Delegates to the Libertarian National Convention chose in separate votes a pair of former Republican governors — New Mexico’s Gary Johnson and Massachusetts’ William Weld — despite objections from party loyalists who booed them as “failed Republicans” and questioned their commitment to party principles.
Mr. Johnson won the party’s presidential nomination on the second ballot with 55.8 percent of the delegate vote, giving him a second shot at the presidency after winning about 1.72 million votes as the party’s candidate in 2012.

While Mr. Johnson’s nomination was all but assured, much less certain was whether the delegation would warm up to Mr. Weld, who joined the party two weeks ago and had been denounced by critics as “Libertarian lite.”
After squeaking onto the ticket with 50.8 percent on the second ballot, Mr. Weld assured the crowd that he would adhere to Libertarian principles while running a race that he said would appeal to both Republican and Democratic voters unhappy with their parties’ nominees.

Libertarian vice presidential candidate Bill Weld (right) speaks with Joe Hunter, communications ... more >
“This is a national ticket,” Mr. Weld told the crowd at the Rosen Centre Hotel in Orlando, Florida.

In the past, Johnson's position on Social Security has been at best inconsistent, and at worst an insight into how little he knows about the mechanics of the system. While I vote Libertarian, the people I vote for generally do not care enough about the program to figure out how it works. Most of what I have seen is old and out of date anyway. If you have something current please share it.

Here is a recent clip from PBS :

GARY JOHNSON: You know, no, I wouldn’t phase out Social Security. I think that Social Security is absolutely fixable. There are some reforms, though, to Social Security, raising the retirement age. You could have a very fair means-testing. You could also be able to self-direct funds. By being able to do that, people, lower-income, middle-income, they could actually pass on the asset of Social Security to their heirs by doing that.

This tells you how out of touch he is. Every dollar in SS is committed. We have 25 trillion in promises for which there is no cash. No cash means that there are no funds to self-direct.

 

[Jack Hays]

In the past, Johnson's position on Social Security has been at best inconsistent, and at worst an insight into how little he knows about the mechanics of the system. While I vote Libertarian, the people I vote for generally do not care enough about the program to figure out how it works. Most of what I have seen is old and out of date anyway. If you have something current please share it.

Here is a recent clip from PBS :

GARY JOHNSON: You know, no, I wouldn’t phase out Social Security. I think that Social Security is absolutely fixable. There are some reforms, though, to Social Security, raising the retirement age. You could have a very fair means-testing. You could also be able to self-direct funds. By being able to do that, people, lower-income, middle-income, they could actually pass on the asset of Social Security to their heirs by doing that.

This tells you how out of touch he is. Every dollar in SS is committed. We have 25 trillion in promises for which there is no cash. No cash means that there are no funds to self-direct.

I really don't care.