Gary Johnson: On the Issues: Would you vote for him?

[Henrin]

And there is the reason that libertarians have failed at gaining any meaningful traction. They think they have all the answers because they are professional fence sitters. Honestly, as a republican, I usually see libertarians as idealist children who will eventually grow up. It takes a complete flop on the part of 2 parties for people to consider libertarians.

Standing up for what you believe in and not simply compromising yourself to the crowds demands makes you someone willing to stand up for their own principles and beliefs. Giving away the farm in order to get some seeds is exactly what conservatives did and I see no reason libertarians should follow them down that road.

 

[blaxshep]

Listen, I understand the argument and probabilities. Given the massive restrictions on political competition and the near shutout of third parties by the media, the system is set to elect a D or an R. So we sit here and say here is the D, here is the R; one of them is so bad that you have to vote for the other. That’s essentially the argument, which one is so bad depends on which side you support.

So we take this relative scale and the best we can come up with is X is so bad we have to vote for Y. I can’t vote for Z because Z can’t win and I need to prevent X. And Z won’t win for as long as enough people convince themselves that Z can’t win. But that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy for a different time.

If this were stand alone, if it were just one election when the choices were so bad that we just have to hold our nose and vote for Y to stop X, it would be one thing. But this is now the trend. A trend is radically different than a stand alone. Each election becomes X is so bad, you have to vote for Y. Each election, the choices get worse, and by participating in that system, you encourage it to become worse. You embolden the status quo to continue the path we are on.

You won’t change the status quo by supporting the status quo

Because it is a trend, it is unsustainable. There’s only so many times we can pull this lever before we’ve irrevocably damaged the Republic. The only way to stop it is to stop it. It’s to stop supporting the status quo since it is the status quo that is slowly taking us down the road to hell. So maybe it will certainly be X or Y, but on the absolute scale X and Y are both horrible. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and if you make a trend of it then you make a trend of supporting evil.

So here we sit, yet again, at a presidential election cycle where the best argument isn’t how wonderful a candidate is, what a great job they can do, what a complete platform they have, oh look at the plans they laid out to accomplish a, b, and c; it’s intelligent and will benefit us all. No, it’s once again, X is so bad you have to vote for Y. But both X and Y are horrid, bottom of the barrel (though next election cycle, they’ll find a lower bottom) tripe that will do harm to the Republic.

Do I support this system? Do I pay into it with my vote? If I do so, I’m just encouraging it. If I vote for them, I embolden them. I give them the excuse to do it all over again the next time. And they will, and the choices will once again get worse. It’s hard to imagine a worse than Hillary or Trump….but they will find it. I am left with NO choice but to support third parties regardless of their probability of winning. Not voting and voting Republocrat will only result in the same thing, encouraging the status quo. But I don’t like the status quo, I don’t like this bigger government, bigger war, bigger brother, bigger debt, bigger “nation building” track that we are on.

So in the end, I need to evaluate what to do. How can I affect the system? Not voting and voting Republocrat produce the same outcome. The only chance I have, even if it’s a remote outside change, the only one I have is third party support. There is no other lever.

And in the end, third parties do not need to win to be effective. They need to aggregate enough votes to disrupt the power balance of the Republocrats. Force one side to continually lose, that side will have to change its platforms and candidates to regain power. It’s not much of a chance, it does suck, it is a hard row to hoe…but it’s what we got. I’m going to take it, I have to. Either Hillary or Trump will be a disaster, I’m done supporting disasters.

The process would have to change to give a real choice to the people. The way I see it, it would take primarily two things:

1. Each candidate that gets X signatures ran run and each candidate gets $X from the tax payers to run the campaign and no money outside that is allowed.
2. No polls can be run, everyone just votes blind on election day.

 

[blaxshep]

Money in politics means nothing. Voters are free to educate themselves and vote accordingly. No amount of money in politics impedes their ability to do that. Only laziness does.

As for corruption, it's also something the voters can take care of.

Money is EVERYTHING in politics. Period.

 

[Harshaw]

Consider the link I provided examining this issue; the voters haven't taken care of anything; rather they've been taken care of. The academic research is in: money in politics via campaign finance and lobbying does in fact mean plutocracy.

Then that's what people want.

Voters have all the agency. They need only to take it. If they don't want to, then that's what they want. "Democracy" means dealing with what people collectively decide.

Consider also: plutocracy is only possible when the government is large and pervasive. Take away most of the powers exercised by the government, and corruption no longer matters, because there won't be much that corrupt politicians can affect.

I suspect, though, that you're not much interested in scaling back government.

 

[Ikari]

The process would have to change to give a real choice to the people. The way I see it, it would take primarily two things:

1. Each candidate that gets X signatures ran run and each candidate gets $X from the tax payers to run the campaign and no money outside that is allowed.
2. No polls can be run, everyone just votes blind on election day.

Yes, it would need to change, for sure. And the money is a huge problem, I think that the Republocrats essentially run a scam now, closed down political competition to guarantee their power, and then use that to generate massive amounts of money. But that's also why voting Republocrat won't change anything. We would need to change funding and participation and many things.

But as it sits today, we have two candidates who I cannot stand. Both will do massive damage to the Republic, and neither has a platform I can endorse. So what do I do? Do I vote for one of these candidates who will never do anything I'd want and who will ultimately hurt the Republic? Do I not vote, which encourages the system that produces the two candidates I cannot endorse and who will ultimately hurt the Republic? Or do I vote third party for a candidate who won't win, but whom can affect the system if aggregating high enough votes?

In this scenario, I think the choice is clear. I have no option but to vote third party. And in the third party candidates, there is actually one with a platform I can endorse, and that is Johnson. So I shall vote for him.

 

[Harshaw]

Money is EVERYTHING in politics. Period.

Really? Because no amount of spending by any politician is going to convince me that the conclusions I've come to about all of them are wrong. I'm voting the way I'm voting because I know it's right, and the MOST they will be able to do with their money is annoy the crap out of me.

Everyone can be like that, if they choose to be.

And as I just said above, money in politics means nothing if the government isn't pervasive. As a libertarian, you're behind making it that way, right?

 

[Ikari]

The academic research is in: money in politics via campaign finance and lobbying does in fact mean plutocracy.

Well we're already there, and it's the Republocrats who got us there. So go and enjoy your plutocracy, but I'm voting against it.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I'm considering it. I am most likely going to vote third party and I haven't decided between Libertarian and Green yet. I probably side with Greens over Libertarians on most, but not all, issues. If I vote Libertarian it will be to add to their growing percentage of support. We need to get another party on the radar. But then that would be strategic voting and perhaps I should just vote for the person I would truly prefer be President, which would probably be Dr. Stein. I don't know, yet. At least with Johnson and Stein my indecision is caused by each candidate standing for different policies that I believe in. It isn't because I feel like I have to choose the lesser of two evils.

I don't agree with Johnson because his ideas on governing trouble me.

Jill steins position on GMO's makes me not like her.

 

[Surrealistik]

Then that's what people want.

Voters have all the agency. They need only to take it. If they don't want to, then that's what they want. "Democracy" means dealing with what people collectively decide.

Consider also: plutocracy is only possible when the government is large and pervasive. Take away most of the powers exercised by the government, and corruption no longer matters, because there won't be much that corrupt politicians can affect.

I suspect, though, that you're not much interested in scaling back government.

#1: Actually no, that's not what the people want, both in terms of the system, and in terms of the outcomes of that system; per the study:

"But the picture changes markedly when all three independent variables are included in the multivariate Model 4 and are tested against each other. The estimated impact of average citizens preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level. Clearly the median citizen or "median voter” at the heart of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy does not do well when put up against economic elites and organized interest groups. The chief predictions of pure theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy can be decisively rejected. Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all."

The theory of the popular vote/preference domineering governance independent of all other factors just does not hold up to the reality as the study demonstrates.

Meanwhile views on money in politics: https://www.issueone.org/new-poll-shows-money-in-politics-is-a-top-voting-concern/ | New US Poll: Vast Majority Want Money Out Of Politics


#2: Divorcing government so wholly from the economy that there is no incentive to subvert it is a pipe dream and will never happen; you would have to get it out of regulation, subcontracting and law pretty much entirely. The obvious alternative is creating substantive campaign finance and lobbying laws which have proven to work in other first world countries that have the resources and infrastructure to uphold and enforce them.

Well we're already there, and it's the Republocrats who got us there. So go and enjoy your plutocracy, but I'm voting against it.

A vote for Gary Johnson is also a vote for plutocracy per his stance on campaign finance.

Further, who said I was enjoying or supporting said plutocracy?

 

[mike2810]

Indeed. He has the experience, the platform, and the isolation from Corporate Donors that this Republic needs to really start to get government out of control.



Actually I didn’t. I refer to them as the aggregate Republocrat party.



They wouldn’t, not at all. If, by some miracle, a third party candidate was elected, the Republocrats would require their failure. They have set up a rather precarious system of power that revolves around the exclusion of all political competition. In that way they can just point fingers at the other side, claim they are the devil, and run on their power teeter-totter. All the while, both sides strive for larger and more intrusive government.

Political competition threatens that system, that balance they made to remove themselves from the control of the People. It’s why we normally don’t hear peep one, and even why now with Johnson polling at around 10%, we still don’t hear too much about it. Not from the Republocrats nor the press they control. They cannot have it. They cannot have the People understanding, knowing, being aware of another choice than them. And if those choices start to poll high, then it’s even worse. Worse yet, a candidate makes it in. So if one did make it in, the Republocrats would try with all their might to make them fail, regardless of consequence since a successful Third Party candidate who makes things better and improves the lot of the Republic would be a direct and considerable threat to their power and money base.

at least then the dems and repub would be united against a third party.:lamo

 

[fmw]

"Gary Johnson: On the Issues: Would you vote for him?"

Voting doesn't fix anything. Voting for him is just as much a waste of time as voting for trump or hillary. I will certainly have something better to do with my time on election day.

 

[Harshaw]

#1: Actually no, that's not what the people want, both in terms of the system, and in terms of the outcomes of that system; per the study:

"But the picture changes markedly when all three independent variables are included in the multivariate Model 4 and are tested against each other. The estimated impact of average citizens preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level. Clearly the median citizen or "median voter” at the heart of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy does not do well when put up against economic elites and organized interest groups. The chief predictions of pure theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy can be decisively rejected. Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all."

The theory of the popular vote/preference domineering governance independent of all other factors just does not hold up to the reality as the study demonstrates.

Meanwhile views on money in politics: https://www.issueone.org/new-poll-shows-money-in-politics-is-a-top-voting-concern/ | New US Poll: Vast Majority Want Money Out Of Politics

They most certainly can have considerable influence over policy by voting out the people who set the policy they claim they don't want.

They can entirely moot any political advertising by educating themselves.

But they don't do these things. Conclusively, they don't want to. If they did, they would.

#2: Divorcing government so wholly from the economy that there is no incentive to subvert it is a pipe dream and will never happen; you would have to get it out of regulation, subcontracting and law pretty much entirely. The obvious alternative is creating substantive campaign finance and lobbying laws which have proven to work in other first world countries that have the resources and infrastructure to uphold and enforce them.

We're not just talking about "the economy"; we're talking pervasiveness in most everything. The pseudo-reasons you give here why it "can't" happen reflect more that you don't want it to happen than it actually "can't."

It certainly CAN happen, because it used to be that way.

A vote for Gary Johnson is also a vote for plutocracy per his stance on campaign finance.

No, it's not, because that "stance" doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

[Ikari]

at least then the dems and repub would be united against a third party.:lamo

There is that. But they are united in many things including the expansion of their own power and the growth of government.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I haven't yet decided whether I'm voting for Gary E. Johnson or writing in Bernie. Bernie and Gary agree on about 75% of the issues - they do, however, diverge when it comes to fiscal and proportional allocation of government responsibilities and resources. I'm perfectly OK with smaller gov't, just as I am OK with a more activist gov't - as long as each is doing what it can to be an asset as opposed to a liability to the people. I was considering Jill Stein - but if there ever was an instance of a thrown-away vote, that would be it. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of Jill Stein getting elected unless Hillary were indicted, Trump assassinated, and Gary Johnson ...well, Idk. I think she might have a chance to beat Gary in a two-way race between he and her.

Between Trump and Clinton, definitely rooting for Trump - only cause the bitch has got to go down.

 

[zimmer]

How does that logic even work? Voting for someone is voting of them. There is no bizarre connection to some vote for some other candidate going on.

You can't be serious, but if you are...

Here is how:

Voting for someone who has no chance is a nice gesture, but not going to achieve your desired result... Namely elect someone with the most ideas/values you embrace.

You're Libertarian... Grrrreat... I line up close to Milton Friedman, and the person and party closest to that has a guy named Trump as their nominee.

You vote for Mr. Invisible, and you're costing the candidate who has the chance to employ the most ideas you support... Your vote.

In essence, you're giving Criminal Hillary, someone who is far from compatible with Libertarian beliefs your support... By denying Trump your vote. I'd encourage that all day long if I were Criminal Clinton.

Now, if you were a Leftist... I'd say vote for the Greenie or Communist... Why? Because you're costing Criminal Hillary a vote.

 

[Cephus]

Standing up for what you believe in and not simply compromising yourself to the crowds demands makes you someone willing to stand up for their own principles and beliefs. Giving away the farm in order to get some seeds is exactly what conservatives did and I see no reason libertarians should follow them down that road.

You're talking idealism, we're talking reality. The reality is, in this race, either Hillary or Trump will win. Johnson has no chance in hell of winning, period. Everyone with half a clue knows it. You're welcome to vote for whoever you want but whether you like it or not, you will spend the next 4 years under either Hillary or Trump. That's a fact.

 

[Surrealistik]

They most certainly can have considerable influence over policy by voting out the people who set the policy they claim they don't want.

They can entirely moot any political advertising by educating themselves.

But they don't do these things. Conclusively, they don't want to. If they did, they would.

Again, the practice doesn't reconcile with the theory; people are busy, pressed for time, only have so much to devote to the political process, and are targeted with the best propaganda and advertising our already largely unfettered campaign finance money can buy; everyone wants good governance, but between a two party system effectively bought up and a political process that heavily favours those with tens of millions of dollars to spend, translating that will into action proves exceedingly difficult. You have a rather naive, utopian view as to the extent this democracy can self-correct via the ballot alone. The will of the people can and has been regularly defied or otherwise managed.

We're not just talking about "the economy"; we're talking pervasiveness in most everything. The pseudo-reasons you give here why it "can't" happen reflect more that you don't want it to happen than it actually "can't."

It certainly CAN happen, because it used to be that way.

It cannot happen; there isn't the political will or popular support for a complete divorce of the government from virtually everything of consequence, including law. Few people support the wholesale elimination of government subcontracting. Much fewer still want to revert to a wild west devoid of regulation. Virtually no one wants the government forfeiting its right to create and enforce laws (which indeed feature substantive economic impacts and thus incentives for corruption/subversion).

Because all these things are true the real solution is strong campaign finance and lobbying laws, not what would have to be the wholesale destruction of government.

No, it's not, because that "stance" doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Yes it is because either you have unlimited money in politics where the rich rule through a bribed government that retains vast power, or the government surrenders most of its power to private interests; in both cases you have differing forms of plutocracy, de facto or otherwise.

 

[Ikari]

You can't be serious, but if you are...

Here is how:

Voting for someone who has no chance is a nice gesture, but not going to achieve your desired result... Namely elect someone with the most ideas/values you embrace.

You're Libertarian... Grrrreat... I line up close to Milton Friedman, and the person and party closest to that has a guy named Trump as their nominee.

You vote for Mr. Invisible, and you're costing the candidate who has the chance to employ the most ideas you support... Your vote.

In essence, you're giving Criminal Hillary, someone who is far from compatible with Libertarian beliefs your support... By denying Trump your vote. I'd encourage that all day long if I were Criminal Clinton.

Now, if you were a Leftist... I'd say vote for the Greenie or Communist... Why? Because you're costing Criminal Hillary a vote.

What if neither candidate has ideas/values one embraces? Are they still "taking a vote" from the rich kid?

 

[Ikari]

You're talking idealism, we're talking reality. The reality is, in this race, either Hillary or Trump will win. Johnson has no chance in hell of winning, period. Everyone with half a clue knows it. You're welcome to vote for whoever you want but whether you like it or not, you will spend the next 4 years under either Hillary or Trump. That's a fact.

OK, and I'll vote for Johnson regardless. I can support neither Hillary nor Trump, they are both toxic to the Republic.

 

[mike2810]

There is that. But they are united in many things including the expansion of their own power and the growth of government.

and you don't believe the third party would work towards the expansion of their own power?

 

[Ikari]

and you don't believe the third party would work towards the expansion of their own power?

Eventually, yes. Nothing is infinitely stable and the political parties need to be turned over every so often.

 

[Cephus]

OK, and I'll vote for Johnson regardless. I can support neither Hillary nor Trump, they are both toxic to the Republic.

Every single person running in every single party is toxic. None of them deserve to hold the office. Mickey Mouse is more qualified to be president.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Every single person running in every single party is toxic. None of them deserve to hold the office. Mickey Mouse is more qualified to be president.

No, just Trump and Clinton.

 

[Ikari]

Every single person running in every single party is toxic. None of them deserve to hold the office. Mickey Mouse is more qualified to be president.

OK, and if you feel that is the case, write in Mickey Mouse.

I think that Johnson can affect positive changes within the Republic, I do not think that is true of either Hillary or Trump. Johnson has the political platform that best matches mine and is the only candidate currently who I can give my consent and sovereignty to.

 

[Harshaw]

Again, the practice doesn't reconcile with the theory; people are busy, pressed for time, only have so much to devote to the political process, and are targeted with the best propaganda and advertising our already largely unfettered campaign finance money can buy; everyone wants good governance, but between a two party system effectively bought up and a political process that heavily favours those with tens of millions of dollars to spend, translating that will into action proves exceedingly difficult. You have a rather naive, utopian view as to the extent this democracy can self-correct via the ballot alone. The will of the people can and has been regularly defied or otherwise managed.

No, you're describing people doing things they'd rather do than the work it takes to educate themselves on the process. I'm busy; I'm pressed for time. I can do it. Everyone else can, too. It, after all, affects their daily lives.

But they don't want to.

It cannot happen; there isn't the political will or popular support for a complete divorce of the government from virtually everything of consequence, including law.

No, it can; you simply don't want it to.

But twice, you've said the government will have to "divorce" itself from "law." No idea what you mean by this, but if you mean criminal law enforcement, that's not something I'm even talking about. It's one of the silly things people bring up when they try to argue against libertarians. No one -- no one -- is talking about shutting down law enforcement or the courts.

Few people support the wholesale elimination of government subcontracting.

I don't have a clue what you think you mean by this. Go ask 50, 100, 500, people if they, using these words, "support the wholesale elimination of government subcontracting"; all of them will stare at you blankly. This is some canard you've pretty much made up wholesale. No one cares. Whatever you mean by it.

Much fewer still want to revert to a wild west devoid of regulation.

There was never a "wild west" of such things. Besides, you said it can't happen, and even here, you admit it did.

Virtually no one wants the government forfeiting its right to create and enforce laws

Nobody argued for that.

But you're STILL arguing from the basis of what people want. Do you understand that you're doing this? I don't see that you do.

Because all these things are true the real solution is strong campaign finance and lobbying laws, not what would have to be the wholesale destruction of government.

No one said a thing about the "wholesale destruction of government." You should probably learn what libertarian philosophy is before you speak against it.

Yes it is because either you have unlimited money in politics where the rich rule through a bribed government that retains vast power, or the government surrenders most of its power to private interests; in both cases you have differing forms of plutocracy, de facto or otherwise.

You're arguing "we must give the government vast power in order to keep power from falling to a small group of elite." Try thinking about that for more than five minutes.