FoxReno.com on Johnson: Most Credible and Accomplished Candidate in (LP) History

In an article by Chuck Muth published 28 June 2012 on FoxReno.com titled “BLOG: Where goeth Ron Paul/Gary Johnson voters in Nevada?”  the author suggests the following strategy for maximizing third-party votes:

First, Republicans need to understand that browbeating and kvetching about “wasting your vote” on a third-party candidate will only cause those voters to dig in their heels.  Instead, you might want to brush up on Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends” advice.

That said, Republicans must bear in mind that Libertarians have a political self-interest, as well.  They’ve nominated the most credible and accomplished candidate in their party’s history, which could earn them a record-breaking popular vote total this year.

But there’s a way for everyone to eat their cake and have it, too.  The way to do it is for Johnson and the LP to focus their campaigning in the solid “blue” (Obama) states where a popular vote for Johnson won’t affect the electoral vote calculus.

The entire article is available here:

http://www.foxreno.com/news/news/opinion-blogs/blog-where-goeth-ron-paulgary-johnson-voters-nevad/nPhNR/

126 thoughts on “FoxReno.com on Johnson: Most Credible and Accomplished Candidate in (LP) History

  1. Darcy G Richardson

    I like Gary Johnson, but this site should be renamed “LPR” – the Libertarian Political Report.

    The third-party community deserves more extensive coverage beyond the LP and its austerity-champion nominee.

    I understand the cheerleading aspect, but how many posts about one party and one candidate can readers reasonably be expected to endure?

    There are a number of other third-party aspirants campaigning for the White House and seats in Congress.

    Give us something interesting…

  2. Bubbalicious

    Mr. Richardson, aren’t you signed up to post articles here? You could do so, if so inclined.

  3. Darcy G Richardson

    I was enlisted by the original owner of this site to post articles, but I haven’t contributed anything in the past couple of years for fear of offending the site’s decidely libertarian-oriented readership.

    I write elsewhere.

  4. Bubbalicious

    As for Chuck Muth’s idea, it is based on the premise that we find the Republicans to be preferable to the Democrats. We do not, and if we did, we’d just vote for the Republicans. We support the Libertarians because we find both the Democrats and Republicans to be equally evil.

    Johnson draws votes about equally that may otherwise have gone to Obama and ones that may otherwise have gone to Romney, so the idea that he is throwing the election to Obama won’t fly.

    He should reject any foolish vote swapping idea that paints us as surrogate Republicans and focus on states regardless of whether they are swing states or safe states. One useful way to pick states to campaign in hardest may be where there are more LP candidates downticket, where the media markets are cheaper, where the states is physically small enough to allow supporters to attend a candidate appearance easily, and so on.

  5. Darcy G Richardson

    Is your name really Bubbalicious?

    What were your parents thinking?

  6. Bubbalicious

    Gary Johnson has nothing original to say.

    In some ways he does, in some ways none of the candidates do. Who has something original to say, in your view?

    I haven’t contributed anything in the past couple of years for fear of offending the site’s decidely libertarian-oriented readership.

    That fear is self-imposed, as articles about all sorts of parties and viewpoints are welcome. Now if we could only find someone willing to write some and post them here, rather than expecting those people who do make the time and effort of writing here to write about subjects that they may not know much about or be interested in.

    Writing elsewhere is no barrier to posting articles here, either. Quite a few IPR writers also write elsewhere.

  7. Bubbalicious

    My parents were drunk on home made corn whiskey when they named me.

    My momma always said life is like a bottle of moonshine…you never know how drunk you’ll get.

  8. Darcy G Richardson

    This country is going to hell, a descendancy that will only be speeded by the Austrian economists embraced by the libertarians, small “l” and large “L” alike —those who imagine the past and remember the future while having little understanding of actual world history.

  9. Bubbalicious

    @11 We can agree to disagree about that, but your articles would still be welcome here.

    Camp cook rule is in effect.

  10. Darcy G Richardson

    George @#10. Well, for starters, I wonder if Gov. Johnson could tell us anything about the Federal Reserve during the Great Depression and how their monetary policies may have forestalled or prolonged that depression?

    Moreover, I wonder if he could even identify any of the four Fed chairmen during that period…let alone describe the policies that they pursued.

    I won’t hold my breath.

  11. Darcy G Richardson

    @12. Thanks, Bubbalicous. What is the camp cook rule? I was a Boy Scout, but that was a long time ago.

  12. paulie

    @12 The camp cook rule is: If you complain about the cooking it is your turn to cook.

    I’ve signed up quite a few writers at IPR, plus the few that were there before me, and have made plenty of effort to include non-libertarian writers. I can’t force anyone to write here, or write more often than they do, or write about any thing in particular.

    I will say this though, it’s a lot easier to find stories about the Libertarians. It’s also easier to get Libertarians who are actually willing to post here and keep posting.

  13. Darcy G Richardson

    Paulie @ 16. Fair enough, my friend. I shouldn’t have barged in, but after having a sip of the moonshine provided by Bubbalicious’s parents, I couldn’t resist. They’re cool people.

    It’s all good…

    Let’s defeat the two corporate-occupied parties and build a better country.

  14. paulie

    Sounds like a plan 🙂

    I’d still love to have you and other non-LPers post more often or, for those that haven’t signed up yet, to go ahead and do so.

    If anyone wants to sign up just comment back.

  15. Austin Battenberg

    I’ve posted articles on the Green Party, their candidate Jill Stein, as well as well as the socialist freedom party, constitution party, and others.

    The thing is, the news doesn’t cover those other minor parties as much as Gary Johnson. So unfortunetly, while I don’t INTEND to post more stuff on Johnson, I end up doing so because every day when I do google searches on Virgil Goode, or Jill Stein, the articles are old. When something comes up, I post it, no questions ask.

    So please don’t think that all the contributors here are guilty of having a bent. Yes I am a libertarian, but I am an independent first, and I want ALL third party candidates to do better then anyone in the two parties. (except Ron Paul lol)

  16. Darcy G Richardson

    Unless you’re into wage slavery — the kind of austerity advocated by those on the center-right and echoed by those in the Libertarian sphere, a position advocated by most of America’s corporate leaders — the U.S. needs a Perot-like challenge to the corrupted two-party system in 2012.

    With Citizens United, it’s much later than one might think..

  17. JT

    Richardson: “I like Gary Johnson, but this site should be renamed “LPR” – the Libertarian Political Report.
    The third-party community deserves more extensive coverage beyond the LP and its austerity-champion nominee.”

    You apparently didn’t notice the 6 posts about the leftist Green Jill Stein, 2 about the rightist Constitutionalist Virgil Goode, and even a post about the “Freedom Socialist Party” in just the last week.

    If you don’t like the ratio of posts about Johnson & the LP to the others, you should merely be annoyed that people apparently don’t care enough to post about them often.

    Richardson: “I was enlisted by the original owner of this site to post articles, but I haven’t contributed anything in the past couple of years for fear of offending the site’s decidely libertarian-oriented readership.”

    You shouldn’t be such an easily intimidated person.

    Richardson: “Gary Johnson has nothing original to say.”

    He’s saying very different things than Obama & Romney are. His ideas weren’t conceived by him, but which candidate’s ideas were & why is this even important?

  18. NewFederalist

    “…the U.S. needs a Perot-like challenge to the corrupted two-party system in 2012.”

    Perhaps Stephen Colbert? 😉

  19. Austin Battenberg

    And you know what, I can’t speak for the other posters here, but personally I agree with Jill Stein and the Green Party on more things then I disagree with them on. We might not see eye to eye on economic policy, but when it comes to foreign policy, civil liberties, and other issues we agree, and that is more then I can say about the Democratic or Republican Party. So I WANT the Green Party to do well, just as I WANT the Libertarian Party to do well. I want all third parties to do well so that way it sends a clear message to those in charge that the people won’t take their crap anymore.

    And I think that most third party voters are generally in agreement when it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties. For the most part.

  20. Darcy G Richardson

    Regardless of how things come out in the wash, the wealthiest Americans benefit by the philosophy advocated by libertarians…

    Poor, working-class and middle-income Americans — those who have seen their net medium wealth drop by 39 percent since 2007 — need a party of their own.

    Screw the privileged and pampered rich.

  21. Darcy G Richardson

    JT = “You apparently didn’t notice the 6 posts about the leftist Green Jill Stein, 2 about the rightist Constitutionalist Virgil Goode, and even a post about the “Freedom Socialist Party” in just the last week.”

    How big of IPR. Six compared to how many for Gary Johnson and th LP?

  22. Darcy G Richardson

    JT @ 21. I’ve spent a great deal of my life writing about folks across the political spectrum. I don’t need you to tell me what’s fair or not…

  23. Austin Battenberg

    @25 Darcy
    Now that’s not fair, since no country in the history of the world has tried true libertarianism, so to blame libertarianism for today’s current problems is a stretch at best.

    @26 Darcy
    Please, post here. I don’t NOT want to cover the Green Party or the socialist Party. I do the best I can, but I am not in the loop, and only post what I can find. While we might disagree philosophically, no one here will fault you if you post only left leaning news. We NEED more posts on other parties, and I happily endorse that.

  24. paulie

    Regardless of how things come out in the wash, the wealthiest Americans benefit by the philosophy advocated by libertarians…

    I think the wealthiest Americans benefit directly and indirectly most from government-granted privileges that libertarians would eliminate. Thus, I think implementing libertarian policies would create more opportunities for everyone else. Not all libertarians agree with me.

  25. paulie

    How big of IPR. Six compared to how many for Gary Johnson and th LP?

    As we have mentioned it is easier to find articles about the LP elsewhere in the media, and easier to find libertarians who are willing to post here and keep posting here. But don’t get me wrong, I am looking for other people to post here too.

    IPR is not a monolith and we don’t come up with a group plan on what gets posted. It is what people make of it.

  26. Darcy G Richardson

    Fair enough, Austin. I appreciate your open-mindedness. I’m not necessarily interested in only left-wing politics, but in reporting the political landscape beyond the narrow Libertarian realm…you know, the line that government is the source of all of society’s ills.

    That’s bullshit.

    There’s a whole wide world out there…a world far beyond Reagan’s “government is the problem” point of view.

    The goals of peace and freedom, for instance, can probably never be realistically achieved on a global scale without some sort of positive role by central governments…

  27. Austin Battenberg

    And most libertarians don’t like Ronald Reagan. He grew government too much. 😛

    The best example of a libertarian President would be Grover Cleveland, a Democrat. Look him up if you want to see how a real Libertarian would govern.

  28. JT

    Richardson: “How big of IPR. Six compared to how many for Gary Johnson and the LP?”

    Like I said, it’s not the fault of Libertarians that Greens & Constitutionalists & whoever else don’t care enough to post more often. If the reason is “I’m afraid that some other people won’t like it” (something that has no basis in reality), then that’s kind of sad.

    Richardson: “JT @ 21. I’ve spent a great deal of my life writing about folks across the political spectrum. I don’t need you to tell me what’s fair or not…”

    I didn’t tell you what’s fair or not.

  29. JT

    Battenberg: “The best example of a libertarian President would be Grover Cleveland, a Democrat. Look him up if you want to see how a real Libertarian would govern.”

    He’s a very good one. In the twentieth century, I think Warren Harding wasn’t bad, even though he was only in office for a couple of years.

  30. Bubbalicious

    There’s a whole wide word out there…a world
    far beyond Reagan’s “government is the problem” point of view.

    Except that this was never Reagan’s view when it came to the military, or drugs, or pornography, or bailouts for S&L crooks…or even, phony rhetoric aside, to economic issues – actions speak louder than words after all. Hell, Jerry Brown cut government after Reagan in California, and Bill Clinton grew it slower than Reagan and the Bushes.

    The goals of peace and freedom, for instance, can probably never be realistically achieved on a global scale without some sort of positive role by central governments…

    I’d have to say that it’s just the opposite, we can only get peace and freedom when governments get out of the way.

  31. Austin Battenberg

    I agree with @35 and @36

    And Darcy, I just posted two Green Party articles, and am about to post one more. Please comment on them. If you don’t want to post any articles yourself, I would be grateful if you could email me anything that is newsworthy and I will do my best to put it up on the site.

    You can email me at abattenberg@yahoo.com

  32. Jill Pyeatt

    Darcy, I’m aware that we writers are overwhelmingly Libertarian, and radicals at that, and I’m a little embarrassed that almost all the articles I post are Libertarian. However, like everyone else writing, I have other things going on and only post maybe half of what I want to post strictly because of lack of time. Since I don’t know who is who in the other parties, and what articles are newsworthy, I usually don’t post them. I post Chuck Baldwin’s articles sometimes and articles from the Boston Tea Party, but we need others who understand those other parties better to contribute. So, please do.

  33. Austin Battenberg

    Exactly Jill. I just posted three articles about the Green Party, but my knowledge is limited to Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Jill Stein. I don’t really know state or local Green Party politics, or more local candidates, and finding any news on ANY of that is VERY difficult. Even Green Party Watch doesn’t exactly have constant updates on Green Party candidates that aren’t campaigning for POTUS.

    My grandma is a Green and voted for Nader all four times though. 😛

  34. kevin knedler

    Wow, so somebody doesn’t like allthe LP commentary. You have three options:
    Keep bitching
    Don’t come to IPR
    Find some other minor party hacks to get off the couch and write something.
    I think the free market of ideas is well served with IPR . And Libertarians like competition.
    Don’t let a couch spring bite you in the ….

  35. kevin knedler

    Furthermore, isn’t it a shame that the LP is growing up, getting more organized, and getting far more credible candidates? LOL. It’s up to some folks in the Green Party to do the same or they will be looking at some small red dots — it will be the tail lights of the LP. You win with organization, a good message, activism, solid candidates, and of course a lot of money.

  36. Darcy Richardson

    I certainly harbor no animosity toward Austin, JT, Jill and others — they promote the Libertarian cause as effectively as anyone on the World Wide Web, and should be commended for doing so.

    My frustration, I suppose, has more to do with a libertarian philosophy that reinforces the undeserved power and influence of a pampered financial elite that runs roughshod over America’s dwindling middle-class — those who pay most of the bills in this society — regardless of what the misguided and dishonest Austrian economists say.

  37. Austin Battenberg

    @43 That is a result of corporatism (or fascism). What you are describing is the collusion of government and giant corporations, NOT capitalism, which is unfettered free markets. While the United States was more capitalist before the 20th century, we weren’t a libertarian country because of the oppression of minorities and women.

    Most rich people today get rich because they lobby for subsidies or regulation from congress to hinder competition. A great example is how the Timber industry lobbied congress to ban marijuana (and as a result hemp), because they KNEW that hemp was a better product then trees for the majority of products we use trees for. Thus fascism rears its ugly head, and big business wins again.

    Libertarians aren’t conservatives. We don’t support the giant corporations that basically control our lives through our government. But the solution isn’t giving the government more power, because its the corporations who will end up wielding it.

    And if someone gets rich because they invented a product that people want, and get wealthy because of it, like Apple did with the iphone, then I don’t see a problem with it because they earned it legitimately, not through government coercion. Think about this, 5 years ago, the iphone was the only smartphone, and was really expensive. These days, almost everyone owns a smartphone, because they are becoming affordable and plentiful. That is the result of the free market.

    All libertarians that I know oppose corporatism. It’s just unfortunate that many liberals confuse corporatism with capitalism, because they are completely different economic philosophies. It’s as different as capitalism and socialism.

  38. Darcy G. Richardson

    “Wow, so somebody doesn’t like all the LP commentary. You have three options:
    Keep bitching
    Don’t come to IPR
    Find some other minor party hacks to get off the couch and write something.”

    Minor party hacks? You’re a class guy, Kevin.

  39. Austin Battenberg

    @42 Kevin, I understand what you are saying, but we don’t want to push people away, we want to bring them in with open arms. Being aggressive like that might turn away potential readers of the site.

    I want IPR to grow, and Darcy is right that we can’t just report on Libertarian news, otherwise we remain a minor media outlet.

    @44 Darcy, what did you mean by that comment though?

  40. Darcy G. Richardson

    Austin, that’s a great post at #45. Nicely done, my friend…that’s the essence of libertarianism and the LP before it was infected by…well, you know, the Republicans who couldn’t hack it in the GOP.

  41. zapper

    @43 It seems to me that you are the one who is misguided.

    Today’s policies are overwhelmingly socialist. Socialistic policies favor the rich, and lead to increasing disparity in income and wealth as we have seen in the US, Europe and the old Soviet block.

    While Libertarianism and Austrian economics are first and foremost concerned with Liberty itself, as being free is worth more than all the gold, wealth and riches on Earth, Libertarian and Austrian economics consist of policies that end the current state policies, programs and subsidies that make the rich richer – especially by ending all taxes on income and property which suck most investable earnings out of the pockets of the working classes before they have a chance to invest, ending inflation which since 1913 has taken 99% of the value of every dollar away from the individuals who tend to be net holders of dollars – ie. the poor and middle classes, ending welfare which traps the poor in poverty, ending public education which wastes the time of our youth in failed schools that do not educate and do not prepare them for life, for work, for earning, saving, investing or developing their own businesses which would allow them to raise their own levels of income and wealth … all of which invariably enure to the benefit of the wealthy by keeping a large army of poor undereducated serfs available to serve the fascist-socialst government and its rich and politically powerful beneficiaries.

  42. Austin Battenberg

    Why do you think most people here don’t like Wayne Allyn Root.

    And why do you think most people here are ashamed of picking a non-libertarian like Bob Barr as its standard-bearer in 2008.

    It’s because while the Libertarian Party is trying to grow and offer a big tent, these non-libertarians are coming in and selling the party as conservative. If they want to do that, they should go to the Constitution Party, where they are not ashamed of calling themselves conservative.

    I’m proudly libertarian, but I will NEVER call myself a conservative. It is associated with people like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. No thank you.

  43. Darcy G. Richardson

    Austin @ 47. I was responding to Kevin Knedler’s dismissive comment (#46) that our nation’s other minor parties will eventually be looking at the LP’s tail lights.

    His comment struck me as the kind of thing one would hear from a typical smug, smacked-ass Republican.

    I could be wrong…

    I guess we’ll see on November 6th.

  44. Bubbalicious

    libertarian philosophy that reinforces the undeserved power and influence of a pampered financial elite that runs roughshod over America’s dwindling middle-class — those who pay most of the bills in this society — regardless of what the misguided and dishonest Austrian economists say.

    That’s not the libertarian philosophy – the undeserved power and influence of a pampered financial elite that runs roughshod over America’s dwindling middle-class comes from leveraging illegitimate government power and influence.

  45. Darcy G. Richardson

    I appreciate your comment, Zapper — and you’re absolutely right. The only socialist aspect of current U.S. economic policy accrues to the wealthy, assuring that the rich didn’t lose a penny in the financial meltdown of 2008.

    The Federal Reserve’s $29.6 trillion subsidy to the financial sector — a quarter of which went to banks in Europe — virtually guaranteed that the rich in the United States didn’t lose a penny during that short-lived collapse while more than 4 million Americans lost their homes and some 20-25 million others found themselves without jobs.

    If you really want to get scared, look at the latest U-6 jobs figures.

    Forgive me for saying so, but I think it’s time for a revolution…

  46. Bubbalicious

    Exactly, like when Aaron Starr posts a hundred articles from Wayne Allyn Root.

    Well, it’s not a hundred, but he does post a bunch of them and sometimes it can be too many all at once. Root is a prolific writer and self-promoter. Other alt party types should be more prolific too!

  47. Bubbalicious

    Darcy and Zapper

    Call it what it is. Not libertarian. Not socialist.

    What we have now is fascism.

    That may sound like hyperbole to some, but it is true, and if you think we are too free for that, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

  48. Darcy G. Richardson

    Austin @40. Your grandmother is a beautiful person, a wildflower sprouting her majestic colors in a field of weeds. Cherish her every day.

    I lost my four grandparents in the the late 1970s and early to mid 1980’s. I miss them dearly. My grandfathers were pretty cool guys — one smoked pot into his retirement years after working for the Pennsylvania Railroad for more than thirty years and the other spent his life working in a mind-numbing Westinghouse factory in western Pennsylvania.

    When I was in my teens, both of them confessed to me that they seriously considered voting for the Socialist Party’s Norman Thomas at the height of the Great Depression in 1932, but ultimately voted for Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    My mother’s father — the best-dressed guy in Pittsburgh — who ended up with a high-paying job in the WPA, said he didn’t make up his mind until literally entering the voting booth on November 8, 1932. He said he stood there for a few minutes, looking at Thomas’s name before casting his ballot for Roosevelt.

    Millions of other Americans probably experienced similar pangs of guilt. Norman M. Thomas, like Ralph Nader, was almost irresistible.

    Hug your grandmother the next time you see her —and give her an extra squeeze from me. Ralph would be proud.

  49. ATBAFT

    #57, my grandfather, too, worked very hard to get FDR elected. FDR then betrayed everything he had run on and my grandfather never forgave him and became a Taft and Goldwater Republican.

  50. Austin Battenberg

    Will do Darcy. I love my grandma with all my heart. She was my main caretaker as I grew up, so most of my philosophical impulses come from her. Non-violence, non-aggression, peace, etc.

    And Bubbalicious is right, we have fascism. Though its a taboo word, so sometimes its better to call it corporatism. Either way, its the form of government we have. Big government and Big Business. Yippee.

  51. Bubbalicious

    I’m proudly libertarian, but I will NEVER call myself a conservative. It is associated with people like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. No thank you.

    Amen to that and everything else Austin said here!

    the essence of libertarianism and the LP before it was infected by…well, you know, the Republicans who couldn’t hack it in the GOP.

    Darcy has a point there. But many of us in the LP are still libertarian on all the issues. We’re fighting inside the party as well as outside and we are not acknowledging defeat on either front.

    Hug your grandmother the next time you see her —and give her an extra squeeze from me.

    My grandma charges for that. She runs the best little whorehouse in the greater Analingus-Dirty Sanchez micro-mini-metro area of South Alabam.

    That’s what my mama done told me. Mama always had a way of explaining things so I could understand them. I’m not a smart man… but I know what love is. You have to do the best with what God gave you. My grandmama sure enough does!

  52. JT

    Richardson: “I certainly harbor no animosity toward Austin, JT, Jill and others — they promote the Libertarian cause as effectively as anyone on the World Wide Web, and should be commended for doing so.”

    I have no animosity toward you either. Based on what you’ve said here I think you’re somewhat confused economically, but you don’t seem like a jerk to me.

    Austin, I have to take issue with something you said: “Most rich people today get rich because they lobby for subsidies or regulation from congress to hinder competition.”

    This might be a good talking point to use with some people on the left, but it’s absolutely not true. The vast majority of people who become rich don’t receive any government subsidies or special regulations.

    Battenberg: “And if someone gets rich because they invented a product that people want, and get wealthy because of it, like Apple did with the iphone, then I don’t see a problem with it because they earned it legitimately, not through government coercion.”

    This is more often the way that people get rich (though not nearly on the scale of Apple & the iPhone, of course).

    Many other rich people don’t invent any new products but have b2b companies that offer a much more efficient way to accomplish goals.

    Other rich people are found in professions such as medicine or law (this isn’t an endorsement of all lawyers, obviously). There are celebrity actors, directors, athletes, etc., but those are obviously a tiny percentage of the population.

    Other rich people don’t own their own businesses but are extremely frugal over decades & are excellent investors in other people’s ventures. They don’t have very high incomes but amass a lot of assets that make them wealthy (read the book The Millionaire Next Door).

    I could go on.

    Battenberg: “Libertarians aren’t conservatives.”

    No, we’re absolutely not.

    Battenberg: “We don’t support the giant corporations that basically control our lives through our government. But the solution isn’t giving the government more power, because its the corporations who will end up wielding it.”

    Er, I don’t think saying that giant corporations basically control our lives through government is too sweeping a statement. I don’t like that some tax money goes toward subsidies for a minority of corporations & there are mandates that lower wages & raise prices, but I don’t think giant corporations “control my life.”

    Also, for-profit corporations are just one group of entities that can use government to achieve their own ends. There are also unions, environmentalist groups, religious associations, etc.

    Battenberg: “All libertarians that I know oppose corporatism. It’s just unfortunate that many liberals confuse corporatism with capitalism, because they are completely different economic philosophies. It’s as different as capitalism and socialism.”

    I agree with this totally.

  53. Austin Battenberg

    When I say rich I meant the super-rich. I should have clarified. But far too often liberals will confuse legitimate rich people with those who DO abuse the system and get rich because of the government. They lump them together and i was merely trying to distinguish the two.

    I remember seeing a graph somewhere where it shows that the 1% is rich, that OWS attacks, but Congress is 50% rich, yet OWS defends and even wants to give them more power.

    I agree that I don’t feel like I’m being controlled by corporations, but just because we don’t see or feel it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Just like the point I made about the timber industry. We still have paper, but its made with trees instead of hemp. So we don’t see the negative ramifications of that government-corporate collusion because we only see the benefits that the timber industry provides.

  54. Bubbalicious

    Pay huge insurance corporations or their uncle sam, it’s all in the family.

  55. Bubbalicious

    I remember seeing a graph somewhere where it shows that the 1% is rich, that OWS attacks, but Congress is 50% rich, yet OWS defends and even wants to give them more power.

    Depends on who in OWS.

  56. Darcy G. Richardson

    You’re right, Austin — and so is my friend, Bubbalicious. If you get a chance, read Bertram Gross’s “Friendly Fascism,” written in the late 1970s. I can send you a copy if you can’t find it in the library. Professor Gross pretty much described where we’re at as a nation some thirty years later, predicting that corporate domination would ensue. Fascism is a pretty accurate description.

  57. JT

    Me in post 61: “Er, I don’t think saying that giant corporations basically control our lives through government is too sweeping a statement.”

    Ugh, I meant to take out the word “don’t.” Another time I wish I could edit my post.

  58. Mark Hilgenberg

    @43 & 45

    Great posts! It is great to see people who get it; I think we just need to be more vocal about real liberty.

    The corporatist crowd have no leg to stand on and it is becoming increasingly easy to counter them.

  59. JT

    Battenberg: “We still have paper, but its made with trees instead of hemp. So we don’t see the negative ramifications of that government-corporate collusion because we only see the benefits that the timber industry provides.”

    That’s not the same as “being controlled” though, Austin. Control implies being punished for some kind of prohibited action or failure to comply with some kind of compulsory action.

  60. Austin Battenberg

    True. But we would likely pay less for paper with hemp, same for ethanol, clothes and other such products. Also, we are controlled to the extent that prohibition still exists, and we are forced by law not to consume marijuana. So in that sense, we are being controlled NOT to do something. (even though people still do it behind closed doors, there is always the threat of violence by the state)

  61. JT

    Battenberg: “When I say rich I meant the super-rich.”

    Ever watch the TV show Shark Tank? It’s one of my favorites. It has a panel of people worth more than a billion dollars (including Mark Cuban). All of them are people who started (and may have sold) ultra-successful businesses. There are more of these kinds of people in the top 1% than you might think. I admire them.

  62. Bubbalicious

    Regarding the original post Ballot Access News points out

    “Vote-swapping” depends on the internet. The facilitator sets up a web page, and voters in swing states are placed in touch with voters in non-swing states. The idea depends on trust. In 2000, Gore supporters in non-swing states were matched with Nader supporters in swing states, via the web page. The Gore supporter promised his or her “partner” to vote for Nader; in return, the Nader supporter promised to vote for Gore.

    California’s Secretary of State in 2000, Bill Jones, had believed that the vote-swapping web page broke election laws, but the 9th circuit rejected Jones’ theory and upheld the legality of the practice.

    Muth presumes that many, if not most, voters who lean toward Gary Johnson would be more sympathetic to Mitt Romney than to President Obama, but his assumption isn’t necessarily correct. Muth advocates that someone set up a web page to facilitate vote-swapping to match up Johnson supporters with Romney supporters.

    Muth has not been a friend of minor parties and independent candidates. He used his influence to help persuade the 2011 session of the Nevada legislature to make ballot access more difficult. Muth did this because he was angry that in 2010, the Tea Party had placed a candidate for U.S. Senate on the general election ballot, using an easy method for a new party to place someone on the ballot. The Nevada legislature in 2011 repealed the easy method, leaving only a much more difficult procedure in place.

  63. Bubbalicious

    I don’t think JT realizes all the ways, big and small, direct and indirect that government helps concentrate wealth and power and make the economy more static.

  64. Darcy G. Richardson

    Great comment by JT @ 61. Most folks on the Left would probably agree with JT’s astute observations.

    The problem is that most of us are clinging to capsized, if not barely buoyant, life rafts maneuvering our way between two over-sized, water-prone U.S.S. Titanic vessels headed for the same iceberg…

    A little government intervention — in the name of public safety, if nothing else — might not be a bad thing.

    That’s doubly true in an economy where the free market has run amuck…

  65. Joe Buchman Post author

    Darcy @ 1 (and ALL),

    You may not believe this (especially as I’m a volunteer for GaryJohnson2012.com), but I’m out there looking for things to say about other alternative parties and just posted my latest (a link to an examiner.com article about “opposition party” responses to the SCOTUS decision yesterday) before I read this thread.

    Part of the apparent bias here may be due to the relative size difference and number of candidates being run by the LP verses other alternative parties. To the degree to which it’s a bias or attempt to recruit votes for the Libertarian Party — I apologize. My attempts to self-monitor that and be objective here are not likely to have been operationalized to perfection yet!

    🙂

    Joe

  66. Bubbalicious

    The free market hasn’t run amok. The government-corporate partnership has.

    Those who give up their freedom for public safety deserve neither, and will get neither.

  67. Darcy G. Richardson

    JT @ 70. “Ever watch the TV show Shark Tank? It’s one of my favorites. It has a panel of people worth more than a billion dollars (including Mark Cuban). All of them are people who started (and may have sold) ultra-successful businesses. There are more of these kinds of people in the top 1% than you might think. I admire them.”

    I admire people with a conscience and a soul. When all is said and done, making money means nothing…

  68. Joe Buchman Post author

    Bubbalicious @ 76 — You’re welcome. So far I’m loving doing it, and it’s a great outlet, IMO, for transparency in the endorsement of candidates work I’m doing with the Gary Johnson campaign. Plus — THANKS to you and all the people who post here (well . . . almost all of them!). I’m learning from the comments, and from being challenged by them.

  69. Bubbalicious

    I admire people with a conscience and a soul. When all is said and done, making money means nothing…

    Conscience and a soul comes first and foremost. However I like to make money too and I don’t fault people for trying. Where I come from government just keeps people from rising up and keeps those who are already rich and comfortable ever more rich and comfortable.

  70. Darcy G. Richardson

    Joe @78. My comment wasn’t directed at you, but rather in response to my own statement in comment @ 77.

    Gary Johnson, whom I think would be a pretty good President, is lucky to have someone as dedicated as you on his staff.

  71. Darcy G. Richardson

    I disagree with Gov. Johnson entirely when it comes to economics, but I’ll gladly say — in the spirit of open politics and integrity — Go Gary!

    He would be the best President in my lifetime…and one can’t ask for more than that.

  72. Darcy G. Richardson

    Bubbalicious @ 75. “The free market hasn’t run amok.”

    Seriously, were you paying any attention to what happened prior to the 2008 financial meltdown — an economic disaster that destroyed the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of Americans?

    Two of my three immediate neighbors lost their homes and a third — an elderly couple who were forced to file bankruptcy and later moved in with their daughter some 1,500 miles away — pretty much watched helplessly as their lifetimes savings dwindled to nothing.

    I wish every American could live in the make-believe world of Bubbalicous.

  73. Bubbalicious

    Oh I was paying plenty of attention. That was no free market. It was government-corporate collusion, yet again.

    I live in the real world. It’s all too real around here, trust me.

    Between Katrina and the BP rig a lot of people have gone under, and most of ’em, it’s all they have ever known.

  74. JT

    Bubbalicious: “I don’t think JT realizes all the ways, big and small, direct and indirect that government helps concentrate wealth and power and make the economy more static.”

    I’m sure I don’t know ALL the ways. But based on what I’ve actually written, why don’t you think I realize the general scope of government interventionism & how it hampers economic growth? What specific statement of mine is false?

  75. paulie

    Darcy

    I disagree with Gov. Johnson entirely when it comes to economics

    Not entirely.

    We agree about ending corporate welfare, corporate bailouts, eminent domain abuse on behalf of corporations, war for corporate interests, etc.

    We agree with desiring an economic system that provides for those most in need and an opportunity for people to rise up out of poverty.

    We do disagree on whether many specific policies will help or hinder those goals.

    But, there is a lot that we do agree on.

    In many ways I would say we agree with you more than we agree with the Demopublican-Corporate establishment, even on economic issues.

  76. Darcy G. Richardson

    JT @ 61: “Based on what you’ve said here I think you’re somewhat confused economically, but you don’t seem like a jerk to me.”

    Thanks. I’d be happy to debate anybody in the Libertarian Party on economics, beginning with the first chairman of the Federal Reserve — and the monetary policies pursued by each of his successors — and how those policies squared with the administration’s fiscal policy at the time, through 2012.

    With the benefit of hindsight, we sort of know which monetary policies worked and which ones didn’t — something Roy Young and some of the earlier Fed chairmen didn’t have.

    I’m really not confused when it comes to economics…I just don’t share your ideology.

    I’m usually a pretty modest individual, but I’m probaby one of the few presidential candidates who can speak at length about every Fed chairman in U.S. history and the policies pursued during his tenure.

    No notes…

    Of course, knowledge doesn’t mean anything at this point in our nation’s history…

  77. JT

    Richardson: “I admire people with a conscience and a soul. When all is said and done, making money means nothing…”

    I admire people who are conscientious. I also admire people who are highly productive & proactive & use their skills to achieve great success in any field. I don’t automatically look at these people with slitted eyes & sneer, “I’m not rich like you are, and most people aren’t either, so obviously you’re a liar & a cheater & a political crony.”

  78. JT

    Richardson: “I’m usually a pretty modest individual, but I’m probaby one of the few presidential candidates.”

    You’re a presidential candidate?

  79. paulie

    What specific statement of mine is false?

    For example that

    The vast majority of people who become rich don’t receive any government subsidies or special regulations.

    It would take more time than I want to spend any time soon to fully explain just how untrue that is.

  80. paulie

    You’re a presidential candidate?

    He ran for the Democratic nomination and is now running for the Reform Party nomination.

  81. NewFederalist

    As the late, great Rodney King once said… “Can’t we all just get along?”

  82. JT

    Richardson: “Seriously, were you paying any attention to what happened prior to the 2008 financial meltdown — an economic disaster that destroyed the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of Americans?”

    And you think this was because of a non-existent free market?

  83. paulie

    I’m really not confused when it comes to economics…I just don’t share your ideology.

    That’s what he meant by “confused”.

  84. Darcy G. Richardson

    You’re right, Paulie — and thanks for reminding me of the important economic issues we share in common.

  85. JT

    Me: “The vast majority of people who become rich don’t receive any government subsidies or special regulations.”

    Paulie: “It would take more time than I want to spend any time soon to fully explain just how untrue that is.”

    Convenient. It’s easy to make assertions like that. I can’t respond to it.

  86. JT

    Paulie: “That’s what he meant by “confused”.”

    No, I meant “confused” as in objectively wrong.

  87. paulie

    Convenient.

    Not really. It would be more convenient for me if I had the time to fully expound on that as much as I would like. Maybe some other time.

  88. Jill Pyeatt

    NF @ 92: “As the late, great Rodney King once said… ‘Can’t we all just get along?’”

    Another classic comment!

  89. paulie

    No, I meant “confused” as in objectively wrong.

    I don’t find it useful when debating someone to either state or assume that the other person is objectively wrong. I always try to keep an open mind that I may be the one who is wrong (I don’t always succeed though), and even though I may well believe fervently that the other person is wrong it comes off as condescending and off-putting to say that.

    In Darcy’s case I know that he is very knowledgeable. That doesn’t mean he’s right, but he knows a great deal of facts and history and has written quite a few books.

    I don’t know that either of you is objectively wrong, or whether that is even possible in interpreting the root causes of complex problems.

    I do think Austin has made a lot of good points here though.

  90. Darcy G. Richardson

    I respect everybody on this thread —more than most of you will ever know. As one of my all-time favorite observers commented, let’s just all try to “get along.”

    I admire my Libertarian friends, as wrong as they might be when it comes to economics.

    We have much in common, the destruction of the two-party system ranking among our highest priorities.

    Let’s give them hell!

  91. JT

    Paulie: “Not really. It would be more convenient for me if I had the time to fully expound on that as much as I would like. Maybe some other time.”

    Looking forward to the time when you offer any proof that most people who become rich get government welfare & get special mandates imposed for them. If and when you have more time.

    U.S. government intervention does distort & harm the economy in all kinds of ways to the detriment of most people, but there’s still a tremendous amount of socioeconomic mobility in the United States. More than many libertarians seem to believe.

    An essential, data-filled book on the subject: Myths of Rich & Poor (Basic Books, 2000).

  92. JT

    Paulie: “I don’t find it useful when debating someone to either state or assume that the other person is objectively wrong. I always try to keep an open mind that I may be the one who is wrong (I don’t always succeed though), and even though I may well believe fervently that the other person is wrong it comes off as condescending and off-putting to say that.”

    I didn’t really consider myself to be debating Darcy.

    In any case, he made casual comment that he had no animosity toward me (and others). I said that I think he’s confused economically but I certainly had no animosity toward him either, which is true. I used the term “confused,” which can mean honestly in error, but in error nonetheless.

    You have many times implied that someone is objectively wrong here by posting some kind of evidence against their position & arguing against them. You may not explicitly say “you’re wrong,” but that’s obvious whether you say it or not.

  93. Darcy G. Richardson

    Thanks to Jill, Paulie and New Federalist for bringing peace to those of us who should be friends.

    It’s almost impossible to find a good mediator.

    We were lucky and found three!

    I hate to be at odds with anybody, such as J.T., who believes in something better than the two-party system.

    While we don’t agree on some of the basics concerning the economy, JT’s thought-provoking comments made this extraordinarily long thread worthwhile.

  94. NewFederalist

    Jill @99… my two favorite quotes are:

    “People anxious to be deceived are easy dupes.”
    – The Grand Duke Alexander of Russia (1931)

    “Nothing matters very much and few things matter at all.”
    – Arthur J. Balfour, British Prime Minister (1902-05)

    They are part of my email signature. I think they say it all.

  95. paulie

    I try to come off as respectful to other people’s positions regardless of whether you call it a debate, discussion or whatever. I try to actually consider what they say and remain open to the possibility they might convince me. I often fail in both regards, but I nevertheless encourage others to take the same approach. If you have an open mind, or even pretend that you do (although actually having one is better), the chances increase that others you are talking to or reading your conversation may be more open minded as well.

  96. NewFederalist

    AND… I love Darcy’s books! I think I have read most if not all of them on third parties!

  97. Bubbalicious

    If we could all just get along we’d have better things to do than sit around on here, I reckon.

  98. Darcy G Richardson

    JT @ 89: “You’re a presidential candidate?”

    I guess so, but it really doesn’t matter. As bad as things were for minor parties heading into the 2010 mid-term elections, they’re now far worse after Citizens United.

    Thanks to Super PACs, Mitt Romney and President Obama can raise more money in two or three days from wealthy individuals and corporate interests than any — if not all — of the third-party candidates combined can generate in the entire election cycle. Drowned in the past, independent and third-party candidates are now forever submerged at the slimy bottom of the two-party seabed.

    Freedom. It’s great.

  99. Bubbalicious

    Maybe Johnson can come up with some supermoney too. Mark Cuban, John Allison, John Mackey of Whole Foods, the major funders of marijuana legalization issues (Lewis, Sperling, et al), and a few others…

    Probably not, but you never know.

    On the other hand may be it will work against the big two in a different way. Maybe they will get so much advertising on the air, and go so negative and nasty, that a certain number of people will be disgusted by both of them and seek out other options.

    We can only hope.

  100. Jill Pyeatt

    NF @ 105: Great quotes, both of them

    My favorite quote, and my motto for my daily life, is Ghandi’s: Be the change you want to see in the world”. Sometimes, that’s a very difficult thing, but I try.

  101. Austin Battenberg

    Darcy, you mentioned that the 2008 crisis was caused by the free-market. I could sit here and tell you that we don’t have a free market, and haven’t had one in 100 years, so it is false to blame something that we haven’t had, but instead, I will direct you to a link of one of my favorite authors, Tom Woods, where he gives a speech regarding the crash of 2008, and articulates the libertarians perspective on that very important event.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=541bajR4k8g
    It’s about an hour long, so grab some popcorn. Even if you don’t agree with his solutions, I think it is best to understand where we come from when it comes to this issue (among others)

  102. Thomas L. Knapp

    I find it quite easy to agree with Darcy on economics, right up to the point of solutions.

    We agree almost entirely on what causes the problems.

    Our difference comes down to him still believing that political government might be able to solve those problems, while I believe that they can only be solved with the abolition of political government.

    Oddly enough, however, I am closer to Darcy than those who still think that a “libertarian” solution is available within political government.

    If the problems can in fact be solved within political government, it will take more, not less, of that government to solve them — state banking, single-payer universal health care, etc.

    “Minarchism” is a dead-end street at both ends.

  103. Bubbalicious

    If the problems can in fact be solved within political government, it will take more, not less, of that government to solve them

    I think that’s based on a flawed view of what leads up to revolutionary change.

  104. Lucy Chronicles

    Anyone in Nevada politics knows Chuckie is something of a paid whore whose only allegiance is to his own Green party, preferably Benjamin Franklins. He has danced w/ LP folks before and direly wanted to take money working for Bob Barr. Chuckie attempts to put on a Conservative Leadership conference every year which has become something of an old fart joke, disgruntled geriatric republicans from LV attend – that’s about all.

    Don’t pay much attention to him. He sphews hot air and has neither been able to maintain most of his paid subscription list so it’s become free. Silver State confidential isn’t all that confidential.

    the guy does some good work in state, don’t get me wrong but folks, he’s a paid consultant.
    Give him 2cents if that. Next…

  105. Thomas L. Knapp

    AB@118,

    I don’t usually use the term “voluntaryist,” but I don’t have a problem with it.

    The thing with political government is that it’s a ratchet that turns in one direction — more power for the state.

    Any reductions in state power are not sustainable trends, they’re just occasional slips of the ratchet on the nut.

    I am skeptical that a more powerful state can solve the problems that Darcy and I agree exist, but the fact remains that the choice is between a more powerful state and no state at all.

  106. Steven Wilson

    @121 Tom

    Minarchy , for me, is a social structure and not a market device.

    Markets don’t NEED government, but the people in them want government as a group dynamic. Government equals safety.

    In our pathology, humans congregate because of commonalities. You become a blood and a crip in the same manner you become a Democrat and Republican.

    Being in a group of people who are like ourselves offers a safety measurable only to each of us. Their can never be a dollar amount with our associations because the market value of the “feeling” of belonging cannot translate.

    Tom, you don’t work the media for the US Communist party, you work the media for C4SS. You do that because of how you feel. You could work for Communism, but that would be because of market pressures like cost of living and salary.

    In my opinion, Minarchy is a moat surrounding a castle. The castle is the individual. Minarchy is the draw bridge. When we want safety we enter the castle draw the bridge as to keep people out. When we need freedom, we let the bridge down and engage the world at our own cost.

    It is a means of mobility, nothing more. Darcy knows the cause of the problems, but I do not believe that he understands the permanence of the cause. Slavery, regardless of construct, is identified in immobility.

  107. Mary Lund

    If the problems can in fact be solved within political government, it will take more, not less, of that government to solve them — state banking, single-payer universal health care,

    ..drone strikes, police brutality, universal wiretapping, medical marijuana raids, war with Iran, the TSA everywhere, domestic use of the military, death camps…

    Right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *