Cody Quirk: No, Darrell Castle Is Not More Libertarian Than Gary Johnson

darrell_castle_square

Darrell Castle

The following article was originally published earlier today at American Third Party Report:

by Cody Quirk

An interview with Constitution Party presidential candidate, Darrell Castle, seems to have much of the minor-party blogosphere up in debate and argument over Mr. Castle’s claim that he is more libertarian then Libertarian Party presidential candidate, Gary Johnson.

Therefore, this informed author views it as a necessary must to pick apart and refute Mr. Castle’s highly-questionable claim to even being ‘libertarian’, including his credentials, background, as well as the background of his political party -in comparison to the LP’s viewpoints on the issues and of libertarianism (small ‘l’) itself.

First off, this article right here on the LP’s website clearly shows where the LP and the CP platforms differentiate from each other, including social issues, the perspective on religion, and the role of religion in government as well, which some CP individuals and state affiliates do like to point out as well, albeit from their own viewpoint.

garyjohnsonphoto

Gary Johnson

Granted, there is the matter of Gary Johnson’s own libertarianism and his adherence to not just the LP platform, but libertarianism in general. Now, while I am a Gary Johnson supporter, I do understand that Mr. Johnson is not exactly the perfect candidate when it comes to his manner of public speaking or his ideological beliefs, and I personally do not agree with all of his views and stances. Yet, that being said; 2016 is a presidential election year like no other; where disdain of the nominees of the major political parties (which this author considers to be theTwin-Evils of American politics), and sympathy, even outright support foralternative candidates and minor parties are higher then they have ever been in a long time; therefore the Libertarian Party alone has the realistic chance of far exceeding its 2012 vote total and breaking into the political mainstream in terms of new members, serious media coverage, better ballot access, more elected officials- including state legislative offices -and the potential of millions uponmillions of dollars in federal funding… Should the Johnson/Weld ticket surpass the 5% threshold of the national vote.

But of course, being the largest, most organized, and active minor party in American politics currently; the interior of the LP tent in reality is a lot bigger then by first glance from the outside, and by those that do not understand the LP that well. After all, there are Libertarians that lean, or dwell on both sides of the spectrum, along with others that are moderate, or minarchist in their libertarianism -along with others that are radical or even outright anarchist in their ideology. However, when it comes to those of the conservative,paleolibertarian persuasion (of which this author identifies with the most); Darrell Castle barely, just barely fits perhaps a portion of that bill; even if he and his campaign website are careful about what issues they address, and how they address them.

When it comes to social issues, for starters, Darrell Castle could not be farther apart from libertarianism when it comes to the previous flash-point of legal same-sex marriage:

“The battle for marriage and western civilization in general is being fought between the American people and the proponents of same sex marriage led by the United States government.  Same sex couples have aligned themselves with the government’s relentless assault on Christian civilization and western civilization in general…”

So begins a statement put out by the Constitution Party of Wisconsin’s back on march 26th of 2013, which was written none other then by Darrell Castle himself on behalf of the CPOW. That alone greatly contrasts with Gary Johnson’s stance on the subject and on general LGBT issues, of which is very much in line with theLP’s position on such.

In the concluding remarks in the same statement however, Mr. Castle additionally emphasized the religious and cultural aspects of traditional marriage too-

“…Marriage is ultimately not a legal question but a religious one, and therefore, if the President of the United States, all 100 members of the United States Senate, all 435 members of the United States House of Representatives, and all 9 Justices of the United States Supreme Court declare same sex marriage to be legal, it is still not legal. It cannot ever be legal because God has defined what marriage is and what God has declared to be illegal mankind is not empowered to declare legal. God’s definition of marriage is the only definition that ultimately matters…”

The quoted paragraph above, is also in line with another former CP candidatethat without question is at the opposite end from where libertarianism stands when it comes to the subject of Church & State.

In addition, we also have Darrell’s podcast on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the case of Obergefell v. Hodges -which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, and the ‘avenues of resistance’ that Mr. Castle elaborates on… Which certainly is not much of a libertarian thing to discuss.

Next on another social issue is the matter of abortion. Gary Johnson’s stance is also clear and largely in conformity with the LP’s official stance on the subject, of course. Yet like the issue of same-sex marriage and LGBT rights; Darrell Castle on the other hand, again takes the socially ultra-conservative stance on it, as he is opposed to even exceptions for rape and incest. And such a stance did end up earning him an endorsement from the Georgia Right-To-Life PAC, which is aknown supporter of the Personhood Amendment, of which Mr. Castle is likewise a supporter of it as well.

And yet, the issue of personhood for the unborn itself is not in conformity with even pro-life libertarians, regardless. Which makes Mr. Castle’s position on abortion even more divergent with many pro-life LP’ers.

It’s also interesting to note too that various conservative-constitutionalist organizations, several newspapers, and even Mr. Castle’s own campaign are promoting him as the ‘Conservative-Constitutionalist’ candidate -or specifically, one that promotes their particular values instead of libertarian ones. Furthermore, his own campaign has stated:

“…Once again the American people must decide who they are.  Are they people of principle standing on God’s promises, or cowards in the face of Hillary?  This year principled people only have one choice.  That choice is a Christian, pro-life, preserver of the Constitution and what most Christians say they want.  Will they have the gumption to vote their conscience or fall back in lack of faith.

Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party Presidential Candidate is owned by no one but God,is bold on the issues, and is educating the American people on what has been happening to them for generations.  He believes in Biblical marriage, is opposed to neutral gender bathrooms in our schools and places of work/shopping.  He hates war and sees it as a last resort, not an economic tool.  Most importantly he believes in and fights for a return to The Rule of Law, where no one is too “high and lifted up” to be above it, and conversely, no one is too “insignificant” to be below it…”

Yep, that does not sound libertarian whatsoever; for one; a real libertarian in this country would never promote one religion over another, nor would they dare promote cultural/traditional (or formerly cultural) norms over individual liberty and personal freedom.

In addition, on a C-SPAN interview, Darrell further emphasized the difference between him and Gary Johnson, along with his political party and the LP:

“…WELL, THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENCES. I CAN GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF PRIMARY DIFFERENCES. THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY IN GENERAL SUPPORTS OPEN BORDERS. WE DON’T. WE SUPPORT SECURE BORDERS. I READ THE OTHER DAY WHERE THEIR MOST LIKELY CANDIDATE, GARY JOHNSON, HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF ADS AN ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVE, BUT HE SAID THAT HE WAS IN FAVOR OF OPEN BORDERS, AND HE’S IN FAVOR OF ABORTION, WHICH HE PREFERRED TO REFER TO AS PRO-CHOICE. WE’RE NEITHER ONE OF THOSE THINGS. SO THOSE ARE TWO PRIMARY DIFFERENCES. WE DO HAVE SOME SIMILARITIES. I MEAN, HE SAID HE WAS AN ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVE. SO AM I. I TRY NOT TO LABEL MYSELF WITH THE TERMS CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL OR WHATEVER THEY MIGHT BE. I DON’T LIKE TO WEAR THOSE LABELS, BUT THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES LIKE THAT…”

This quote from him does not at all make him sound ‘more’ libertarian then Gary Johnson; in fact he gets it quite wrong on the LP’s standing on the issues ofimmigration and abortion. Furthermore, Mr. Castle perjures himself in addition here when it comes to Gary Johnson’s own stance on the issue of immigration:

“…Governor Johnson has long advocated a simplified and secure system of work visas by which willing workers and willing employers can meet in a robust labor marketplace efficiently and economically. Aspiring immigrants would undergo a background check, pay taxes and provide proof of employment.

Making it simpler and efficient to enter the U.S. legally will provide the greatest security possible, allowing law enforcement to focus its time and resources on the criminals and bad actors who are, in reality, a relatively small portion of those who are today entering the country illegally.”

And on abortion, Gary is not exactly as “Pro-Choice” as Mr. Castle likes to claim. Here’s an excerpt of Gary’s official position on that subject from his own campaign website-

“Gary Johnson has the utmost respect for the deeply-held convictions of those on both sides of the abortion issue. It is an intensely personal question, and one that government is ill-equipped to answer.

As Governor, Johnson never advocated abortion or taxpayer funding of it. He supported a ban on late term abortions. In his personal life the Governor believes in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. 

However, Gov. Johnson recognizes that the right of a woman to choose is the law of the land, and has been for several decades. That right must be respected, and ultimately he believes this is a very personal and individual decision. He feels that each woman must be allowed to make decisions about her own health and well-being and that these decisions should not be dictated by the government…”

How sad is it that a lesser known presidential candidate in sheer desperation has to stoop to such inaccurate and untrue libel, even subtle libel, to try to dent or take away support from a better known and more popular minor party candidate that, unlike Mr. Castle, will be on the ballot in all 50 states before election day and does not limit his appeal to only a certain type of American voter, unlike Mr. Castle.

I could address more social issues here that would further do damage to Mr. Castle’s pseudo-libertarian image. However, what has already been discussed on these topics here are sufficient enough.

Moving onto the economic issues, Mr. Castle is quite careful to discuss selected subjects on his website that are a tad vague and inclusive enough for both libertarians and economic protectionists of the paleoconservative persuasion to agree on. Yet nevertheless, there’s no question that Darrell’s lack of classical liberal/laissez-faire/pro-free trade credentials (which constitute general libertarianism) are quite apparent. To reference again the above quote from Mr. Castle’s interview on C-SPAN; it is quite obvious that he understands very littleof what an ‘economic conservative‘ is; instead, he appears to automatically assume that economic (fiscal) conservatism equates with Pat Buchanan-style protectionism, or economic nationalism -of which could not be laughingly further from the truth. Perhaps Mr. Castle should do better research in his spare time on economic definitions, along with economics itself maybe? Because he is most certainly not a fiscal conservative, or even an economic libertarian at that. Yet Gary Johnson is one, unlike Mr. Castle and most of all his Constitution Party;Indeed, Mr. Johnson is a genuine, though imperfect libertarian, and a true economic, fiscal conservative.

Therefore, Mr. Castle’s libertarian claims, of which have been proven here to have little to no foundation to stand on in terms of substance and honesty, is quite damming once they are scrutinized and exposed, therefore hurting the integrity of his candidacy even more then it already is with certain ballot-qualified CP state affiliates that refuse to place the Castle/Bradley ticket on their ballots for particular reasons.

In conclusion, when it comes to Mr. Castle’s false and fictitious claim of “beingmore libertarian then Gary Johnson” -the CP’s presidential candidate should in fact quickly drop that claim post haste or face being further discredited, along with owing Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party an apology.

45 thoughts on “Cody Quirk: No, Darrell Castle Is Not More Libertarian Than Gary Johnson

  1. Tony From Long Island

    Mr. Castle’s opinion on marriage equality immediately disqualifies him for not only the presidency for me, but also any hint or libertarianism. Any opinion on public policy that involves the word “GOD” automatically makes me roll my eyes.

    How can a party call itself the “CONSTITUTION” party, yet be guided by biblical principles when it comes to public policy matters? The two are not compatible. Plus, there’s already a party guided by the Constitution – The Libertarian Party!

    Hey, Mr. Castle . . . the marriage thing is over . . . you lost.

  2. Cody Quirk

    Yep. Constitutionalists just need to fuck off on trying to claim the Libertarian label and stick to their own label- otherwise articles like these will pop up often 😉

  3. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Tony, Dr. Tom Woods is a traditionalist Catholic; because of his deep faith, he is a staunch social conservative and basically holds the same position. Was Woods boycotted at the national convention? Is there any libertarian out there who thinks that Dr. Woods’ convictions on social issues disqualify him from the libertarian label? If there are, there’s not many of them.

    There’s always Hans Herman Hoppe, though he’s more radical then the author of such classics as the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.

    Libertarians can be socially conservative, and they can definitively be for closed borders. Where do you think the term paleolibertarian originated from? They differentiate themselves, however, from your general CP member in that they believe that their values should be promoted by society and the market, rather than the state. The CP (or at least a large chunk of the party) wants to enforce the 10 Commandments and Old Testament Biblical law through the power of the state, which would entail the criminalization of homosexuality and adultery, among other things. This is something that was still achievable as late as the 1950s I dare say, but America has become a much more secular place. With the exception of possibly moving forward on restrictions to abortion, the CP’s social agenda is not going to find a groundswell of support anywhere outside of perhaps the rural South or congregations like Faithful World Baptist Church.

    As far as Darrell Castle is concerned, I agree that calling him a libertarian is a stretch, but I see no evidence that he shares the core, fundamentalist religious views espoused by people like Riley J. Hood or the infamous pastor Steven Anderson. Castle is similar to Chuck Baldwin. Baldwin is a paleoconservative with an arguably paleolibertarian streak. Castle is no theocrat like Michael Peroutka. I have consistently maintained that Castle the best the candidate in the race; he does, however lack the passion, energy and charisma of Baldwin.

  4. Cody Quirk

    IMO, the only CP candidate that was more libertarian then the LP one was Chuck Baldwin, in the 2008 election when the LP ran Bob Barr, whom was indeed a LINO and a stain on the LP, unlike Gary Johnson. And unlike GJ, Barr left the LP and went back to the GOP quickly after.

    Barr is a serious POS since his associates destroyed the predecessor to IPR- Third Party Watch.

  5. Cody Quirk

    I agree that Castle is more moderate and better speaking then the likes of Grundmann and Hood, but nevertheless he would still implement the CP’s platform into law and would certainly include people like Michael Peroutka and Peter Gemma in his administration if he actually became president.

  6. langa

    What a rambling, incoherent screed. I’ve seen 12-year-olds that were more gifted polemicists. As to the substance of the article (or what little there is):

    1. Abortion is easily the single most divisive issue among actual libertarians, as the NAP was not designed with fetuses in mind. Given that, any attempt to use one’s position on this issue as some sort of libertarian litmus test is absurd.

    2. Immigration is probably the one issue where Johnson is clearly more libertarian than Castle, although even there the difference is nowhere near as great as Quirk (and apparently Castle, as well) would have us believe, as Johnson is (unfortunately, in my opinion) nowhere close to an advocate of open borders.

    3. Gay marriage is an issue where Castle is actually far more libertarian than Johnson, as Castle actually takes the correct libertarian position, that government shouldn’t be involved in licensing or regulating marriage at all. (Note that this has nothing to do with Castle’s personal opinion, just as one can favor free speech, despite disagreeing strongly with the speaker’s viewpoint.)

    4. On economics, no, Castle isn’t a libertarian, particularly on free trade, but neither is Johnson, with his advocacy of crony capitalism and managed trade via the TPP. Here’s a hint: Just because it has the CATO seal of approval doesn’t mean it’s even remotely libertarian. Same goes for the “Fair” Tax, which would make tax evasion more difficult, would conscript every merchant into being federal tax collectors, and would put every man, woman and child in the country on welfare.

    5. Of course, the article also doesn’t mention Johnson’s many other non-libertarian position, such as his advocacy of bakery slavery, his fondness for “humanitarian” wars, and so forth. Nor does it mention his hand-picked VP, who appears to be Cheney to Johnson’s Dubya, and who supports, among other things, Obamacare’s universal mandate, as well as a plethora of draconian gun control laws. I wonder if Quirk considers these to be libertarian positions?

    Apparently, IPR is now a forum for political dilettantes with an ax to grind. What’s next? An editorial by Nathan Norman?

  7. Cody Quirk

    Haters gotta hate, especially when they hypocritically bleat about the lack of libertarianism in one candidate and turn around and hype up the artificial “libertarianism” of another candidate that’s actually a bible-thumping paleoconservative bearing false witness on the word ‘libertarian’ who features parts of his party’s national platform on his website without any dissent to it and also parades endorsements from supporters with ties to white supremacy on his campaign website in addition.

    You compromise and water down your own libertarianism by supporting a candidate that would infringe quick on the liberties of those of alternative lifestyles and put the bible before the U.S. Constitution -all in desperation to smite Gary Johnson.
    I used to be a CP member, I know how these people tick, and while some of them are well-intentioned palecons, many others are outright theocrats that would be the last people in this country that you would ever want to dare put into office, so who are you to falsely claim that such holly rollers are more dedicated to individual liberty and free enterprise?!

    Find another alternative to Gary Johnson then this Christian Reconstructionist, langa; because LP’ers and libertarians are not going to drink the calvinistic kool-aid just because GJ isn’t radical enough for them to vote for.

  8. Cody Quirk

    Furthermore, why don’t you talk to Floyd Whitley, J.R. Myers, and the Idaho CP about just what they think of Darrell Castle and the EC of the Constitution Party… I’ll give you a hint; The Idaho CP is running someone else on their ballot for president.

  9. Darcy G Richardson

    “…but nevertheless he would still implement the CP’s platform into law and would certainly include people like Michael Peroutka and Peter Gemma in his administration if he actually became president.” — Cody Quirk

    Peter Gemma would be a welcome addition in any administration. Langa is right. Cody’s obvious disdain for the Constitution Party — and anybody associated with it — is simply beyond the pale.

  10. Richard Winger

    The government needs to know who is married to whom, to preserve the ancient common law principle that says the government can’t force a spouse to testify against his or her spouse.

    The government also needs to know who is married to whom, because after centuries of nagging, many people still persist in failing to write wills. So when someone dies intestate, there is no substitute for the government’s rules on how to distribute the estate, without knowing if two individuals were married.

    Darrell Castle is an attorney and I would be surprised if he thinks that legal recognition of marriage should be erased from all civil and criminal codes.

  11. Jim F

    Bob Barr is a delegate to the RNC ’16, but he’s still a life member of the LP. So unless you claim Ron Paul is not a member of the LP because of his involvement with the GOP, then you can’t say Bob Barr is not a memer of the LP until the LP stops recognizing life memberships

  12. Cody Quirk

    “Peter Gemma would be a welcome addition in any administration. Langa is right. Cody’s obvious disdain for the Constitution Party — and anybody associated with it — is simply beyond the pale.”

    Obviously you are unaware of Peter’s past association with the Institute for Historical Review and various other organizations that are big on holocaust denial and the white race.

  13. Cody Quirk

    Magnus/Freudian Slip/Pyramid Pile of Penis, that lovely comment you posted got blocked and after calling Andy Craig a faggot and then suddenly going back on it- you’re not fooling anyone, especially me.

    You have serious issues that actually makes someone like Don Grundmann look sane and hopefully you’ll get the help you need after the FBI has a chat with you soon.

  14. langa

    You compromise and water down your own libertarianism by supporting a candidate that would infringe quick on the liberties of those of alternative lifestyles and put the bible before the U.S. Constitution…

    For the record, I am not “supporting” Castle. I haven’t donated a penny to his campaign, nor do I plan to do so. I did say I would consider voting for him if he is on the ballot in Georgia, but it doesn’t look like he will be, so that’s a moot point.

    Furthermore, you continue to act as if candidates automatically campaign on the platform of the party that nominated them. Unfortunately, that’s simply not the case — if it were, then Johnson might actually be running a halfway libertarian campaign, instead of advocating this milquetoast centrist shit.

  15. langa

    The government needs to know who is married to whom, to preserve the ancient common law principle that says the government can’t force a spouse to testify against his or her spouse.

    The libertarian position is that no one should be forced to testify in court, period.

    The government also needs to know who is married to whom, because after centuries of nagging, many people still persist in failing to write wills. So when someone dies intestate, there is no substitute for the government’s rules on how to distribute the estate, without knowing if two individuals were married.

    First, the job of government is not to protect people from their own stupidity, so if someone can’t convince their spouse to make out a will, that’s their problem.

    Second, there’s no reason privately issued marriage certificates couldn’t be entered into evidence at an estate hearing.

  16. Richard Winger

    Anyone who is so slip-shod as to fail to make a will, probably also would not have bothered to arrange for a document proving a private marriage.

  17. Cody Quirk

    “Furthermore, you continue to act as if candidates automatically campaign on the platform of the party that nominated them. Unfortunately, that’s simply not the case — if it were, then Johnson might actually be running a halfway libertarian campaign, instead of advocating this milquetoast centrist shit.”

    Darrell Castle has never denounced the CP platform and in fact includes excepts of it on his website-
    http://castle2016.com/qa/
    In order to get the ok from the CP to be their presidential candidate, they have to be in agreement with the principles of the CP and the platform too. Believe me, Darrell was a convention delegate and certainly voted to approve the current CP platform.
    Darrell is simply being coy and politician-like in presenting his views to the public, and you seem to be buying it.

    CNN just came out with a national poll that showed Johnson at 13% If the LP selected a radical and non-compromising candidate instead of Gary, would that candidate be polling as high by this time?

  18. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    And so we have Quirk, the ” Mormon ” who is a total supporter of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement in ANYTHING that they do inclusive of teaching ” gender fluidity ” to kindergardeners, using IPR to advance his never ending hatchet job on the CP He rattles on yet again about CP support of a ” theocracy ” while yet again ignoring his own support of the Humanist/Satanist theocracy which is ruling both the LP and our nation; and which is his REAL religious belief system.

    If anything this article well illustrates that while the LP may have supporters of REAL; i.e; man/woman; marriage within it and may also contain those who are pro-life the Humanist/Satanist Theocracy of the LP, of which Quirk is an aspiring Bishop, which rules the party is going to attack, ridicule, and sideline any such members so that their Ruling Agenda of Anti-Christianity is the only voice coming out of the LP mouth. Of course Quirk is a perfect spokesguy for this attack as he totally despises the Christian foundations of the CP despite his unwillingness to ” come out of the closet ” and admit his true religious beliefs which can still be openly discerned by his actions.

  19. Cody Quirk

    Don, with how you feel about the Libertarian Party- do you agree that Darrell Castle is in the wrong to try to claim he’s libertarian?

  20. Joshua

    I’m only here to see Don’s comments. It’s always entertaining to see him comment on other people’s religious beliefs and accuse everyone who disagrees with him of being a member of some sort of satanist plot to take over the world and make alternative life styles acceptable.

  21. langa

    Anyone who is so slip-shod as to fail to make a will, probably also would not have bothered to arrange for a document proving a private marriage.

    If someone is that lazy, what makes you think they would bother to get a government marriage license?

  22. langa

    Darrell is simply being coy and politician-like in presenting his views to the public, and you seem to be buying it.

    You don’t seem to have a problem with Johnson and Weld taking positions that contradict the platform of their party. Why isn’t Castle entitled to do the same thing?

    CNN just came out with a national poll that showed Johnson at 13% If the LP selected a radical and non-compromising candidate instead of Gary, would that candidate be polling as high by this time?

    Who cares? If the goal was just to select the candidate who polled the highest, regardless of whether they actually campaign on a libertarian message, we should have offered our ballot line to someone like Ted Cruz. I guarantee he would be polling higher than 13%.

    To put it another way, I would rather 5% of the electorate be exposed to a genuinely libertarian message than for 50% of the electorate to be tricked into believing that libertarianism is just milquetoast centrism.

  23. Andy

    I would be willing to bet that a lot of those poll numbers for Johnson have little to do with Johnson or the Libertarian Party, as I bet that a lot of it is just a protest “vote” against Hillary and Trump, and against the D’s and R’s in general. You could probably replace the name Gary Johnson with just about anyone, or put Other, or None Of The Above, and obtain a similar result.

  24. T Rex

    Regardless of one’s opinion on gay marriage, having the Supreme Court impose it on the states is *not* libertarian. At all. The libertarian position is the total opposite: that government has no role in marriage. No libertarian thinks bakers should be imprisoned.

    Abortion is a contentious issue everywhere, and there are pro-life libertarians. See: http://www.libertariansforlife.org *All* libertarians agree that taxpayers should not have to subsidize Planned Parenthood.

    So Johnson’s positions are socially liberal rather than libertarian (and yes, there is a difference between the two), but that’s really not my major beef with him. I just think he’s flaky, wishy-washy, unprincipled, and underwhelming. He would never tell a liberal reporter to his face the Government Agency X should be abolished, because he is scared of looking out of the mainstream.

    That’s not what I expect from LP candidates.

  25. Al Hopfmann

    Some really great comments by Langa, T Rex, and a few others! You are supporting my analysis that Darrell Castle is more libertarian than Gary Johnson is at present. In my opinion, Gary has slipped from 85% libertarian in 2012 to less than 75% now. Meanwhile, Castle has made an honest and excellent case for showing that he is above 80%. I actually like both of them, but after the CFR Establishment intrusion of William Weld onto the Libertarian Party ticket, I find it counterproductive for any real Libertarian to vote for Johnson/Weld. So, just like 2008 when Chuck Baldwin was the best candidate for President instead of the Libertarian Party candidate, Darrell Castle is a better candidate than Gary Johnson. All true Libertarians and libertarians should vote accordingly.
    Regarding my previous comments posted on this article, what happened to them? Did they get deleted as part of the process to delete the offensive comments by others that the author objected to? Did my comments become “collateral damage”? Or are they still available for other commenters here to read?

  26. Andy

    I do not agree with Cody here, and it sounds to me like he has a case of sour grapes. Castle is clearly more libertarian than Johnson and Weld on a bunch of issues, including ones that I would weight heavily, like the right to keep and bear arms (which on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most important category, I would weight with a 10).

    Unlike Gary Johnson, Darrell Castle understands that private business owners should not be forced to labor for people for whom they do not wish to labor, while Johnson thinks that it is OK to force private business owners to provide goods and services to people they do not want to do business with under the guise of Johnson’s “political correctness.”

    Unlike Johnson, Castle did not chose a running mate who is a part of the ruling establishment, like Johnson did by choosing Council on Foreign Relations member William Weld, nor does Castle take advice from anyone who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    Oh yeah, a Libertarian friend of mine met Castle a few years ago and asked him if he supports fully informed juries, and jury nullification of victimless crimes. Darrell Castle said yes.

    I also met Darrell Castle a few years ago. I asked him if he opposed the War on Drugs at both the national level, as well as the state and local level. He said yes. I told him that I am a Libertarian Party member, and he said that he considers himself to became libertarian, and that if the Constitution Party was not around, he would probably be a Libertarian Party member. His main beef against the Libertarian Party is that the party refuses to take a strong anti-abortion stance, as he is very much opposed to abortion.

  27. Andy

    Taxation is another issue which I weight in the most important category. Gary Johnson wants to end the income tax, and replace it with the Fair Tax, which is designed to bring in as much money as the income tax. Darrell Castle wants to end the income tax and replace it with nothing.

    I recall Gary Johnson calling for a 10-20 percent cut in federal government spending during that CNN Town Hall. That is in the right direction, but spending needs to be cut a lot more than that, and a Darrell Castle administration would cut federal government spending by significantly more than the measlely cut proposed by Johnson.

  28. T Rex

    “Castle is clearly more libertarian than Johnson and Weld on a bunch of issues, including ones that I would weight heavily”

    Exactly.

    I have no choice but to weigh economic issues (the Fed, taxation, etc) more heavily because it’s money plucked straight out of my pocket. Castle is far more bold and libertarian on those issues.

    For someone whose #1 issue is whether the government will pay for their abortion or coerce bakers (which IMO is quite ridiculous) Johnson is indeed the better candidate. I want war on bankers, not bakers 😀

  29. T Rex

    “Gary Johnson wants to end the income tax, and replace it with the Fair Tax, which is designed to bring in as much money as the income tax.”

    While I’m not a protectionist, I find it amusing that the Johnson supporters are perfectly fine with a draconian, gestapo, regressive sales tax on everything but militantly opposed to tariffs on some foreign goods. Neither are good of course but…seriously.

  30. George Dance

    langa:

    “1. Abortion is easily the single most divisive issue among actual libertarians, as the NAP was not designed with fetuses in mind. Given that, any attempt to use one’s position on this issue as some sort of libertarian litmus test is absurd.

    Yet that was exactly Darrell Castle’s claim: that he is “more libertarian” because (a) he claims Johnson and Weld are both members o the CFR, whereas he isn’t; (b) Johnson is “pro-abortion”, whereas Castle isn’t; and (c) Johnson is “open borders,” whereas Castle isn’t. Castle’s first criterion is absurd, admittedly, and so may be the second, but that’s what one has to use to judge between them.

    As pointed out earlier, calling Johnson “pro-abortion” is a strawman: he doesn’t go around advocating abortions. In fact, as was noted, he’s on record as wanting to limit some instances (such as partial-birth abortions). But he does think that, in most cases, it’s a woman’s choice. Whereas Castle is clear: he wants to ban all abortions – he thinks that fetuses, embryos, and even zygotes are “persons” (which would make women aborting them murderers) – though he’d settle for getting the Supreme Court out of the matter and leaving it up to the states. (Analogous, on his reasoning, to leaving the question of allowing murder up to the states.)

    2. Immigration is probably the one issue where Johnson is clearly more libertarian than Castle, although even there the difference is nowhere near as great as Quirk (and apparently Castle, as well) would have us believe, as Johnson is (unfortunately, in my opinion) nowhere close to an advocate of open borders.

    Perhaps Johnson isn’t (though I don’t know what exceptions you’re thinking of); but there certainly is a difference between those exceptions, whatever they are, and what Castle is campaigning on, which is a “closed border”: no legal immigration, period. (Sure, he says his immigration ban would be “temporary”, until he could “secure the border; but that doesn’t mean the ban would ever be removed under a CP administration). That’s not even not libertarian, but not constitutional, considering that the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government no power to ban immigration.

    3. Gay marriage is an issue where Castle is actually far more libertarian than Johnson, as Castle actually takes the correct libertarian position, that government shouldn’t be involved in licensing or regulating marriage at all. (Note that this has nothing to do with Castle’s personal opinion, just as one can favor free speech, despite disagreeing strongly with the speaker’s viewpoint.)

    This wasn’t one of Castle’s litmus tests, of course; but it’s worth commenting on, considering your comments. First, I doubt Castle wants to eliminate “government” involvement in marriage; if asked to qualify, he’d probably want to leave it “up to the [governments of the] states” too. Second, that’s something the CP has come up with only because of last year’s SCOTUS decision; before that, one never heard a peep, from any CP figure, about it. Third, it doesn’t even make sense – eliminating “government involvement” in marriage means eliminating “government involvement” in divorce. The idea that government should not be involved in enforcing contracts of any type may be attractive to anarchists, but it’s not *prime facie* the “correct libertarian position”.

  31. George Dance

    Andy: “Taxation is another issue which I weight in the most important category. Gary Johnson wants to end the income tax, and replace it with the Fair Tax, which is designed to bring in as much money as the income tax. Darrell Castle wants to end the income tax and replace it with nothing.”

    Aside from the issue of tax revenue (which is complicated by the deficit), there are good reasons to replace the income tax with a sales tax. It means people won’t be compelled to disclose their finances to the federal government; government will no longer have the power to audit them; and, on the margins, the IRS won’t be arresting, searching and seizing, and even killing them.

    It’s true that replacing the income tax with “nothing” would do the same, so you might call that a wash: so let’s look at the spending side. Remember that the CP argument for banning immigration is that “you can’t have immigration and a welfare state” (meaning that they opt for keeping the welfare state). How do they expect to have a welfare state and “nothing” to finance it?

    “I recall Gary Johnson calling for a 10-20 percent cut in federal government spending during that CNN Town Hall. That is in the right direction, but spending needs to be cut a lot more than that, and a Darrell Castle administration would cut federal government spending by significantly more than the measlely cut proposed by Johnson.”

    Johnson is calling for an immediate 20% cut in his first budget, to eliminate the federal deficit; that doesn’t rule out further cuts. In contrast, Castle isn’t calling for any spending cuts: only for bringing federal spending “under control” – a mealy-mouthed phrase that can mean whatever a listener wants it to mean.

  32. Andy

    “Open borders” into a place that has a welfare system, forced integration, and Affirmative Action programs, and where much of the property is owned and controlled by the government, and where immigrants to this land can fraudulently obtain citizenship (note that this process includes swearing an oath to the US Constitution, a document that most of these people do not understand, and of which many of them hold ideologies that are hostile to the concept of a limited constitutional government, as they favor an unlimited government), and then be granted voting “rights,” which means that they can use the ballot box to gain political power, which means that they can cram their Marxist, and/or other anti-liberty views down everyone else’s throats, Is NOT a libertarian position all, it is a socialist position.

  33. George Dance

    ““Open borders” into a place that has a welfare system, forced integration, and Affirmative Action programs, and where much of the property is owned and controlled by the government, and where immigrants to this land can fraudulently obtain citizenship (note that this process includes swearing an oath to the US Constitution, a document that most of these people do not understand, and of which many of them hold ideologies that are hostile to the concept of a limited constitutional government, as they favor an unlimited government), and then be granted voting “rights,” which means that they can use the ballot box to gain political power, which means that they can cram their Marxist, and/or other anti-liberty views down everyone else’s throats, Is NOT a libertarian position all, it is a socialist position.”

    IOW, you have a number of complaints:
    (A) (some) people from outside the United States can move there to live;
    (B) the United States has a welfare state
    (C) the United States has “Forced Integration” and “Affirmative Action”
    (D) the United States grants citizenship and voting rights to people “who do not understand the contitution,” many of whom “hold ideologies that are hostile to the concept of a limited constitutional government, as they favor an unlimited government”; and who “can use the ballot box to gain political power, which means that they can cram their Marxist, and/or other anti-liberty views down everyone else’s throats.”

    And your argument is:
    1. B, C, and D are not libertarian.
    2. Therefore, A, B, C, and D (taken as a whole) are not libertarian.
    3. Therefore, libertarians have to be against A.

    I believe this is what Ayn Rand used to call a ‘package deal’.

  34. George Dance

    OK, Andy; you have a number of complaints:
    (A) (some) people from outside the United States can move there to live;
    (B) the United States has a welfare state
    (C) the United States has “Forced Integration” and “Affirmative Action”
    (D) the United States grants citizenship and voting rights to people “who do not understand the constitution,” many of whom “hold ideologies that are hostile to the concept of a limited constitutional government, as they favor an unlimited government”; and who “can use the ballot box to gain political power, which means that they can cram their Marxist, and/or other anti-liberty views down everyone else’s throats.”

    And your argument is:
    1. B, C, and D are not libertarian.
    2. Therefore, A, B, C, and D (taken as a whole) are not libertarian.
    3. Therefore, libertarians have to be against A.

    I believe this is what Ayn Rand used to call a ‘package deal’.

  35. langa

    Castle’s first criterion is absurd, admittedly, and so may be the second, but that’s what one has to use to judge between them.

    Why should we use Castle’s criteria? It makes much more sense to look at the totality of their positions and see which one is actually more libertarian, rather than limiting ourselves to a few issues that Castle just so happened to throw out during an interview.

    Castle is clear: he wants to ban all abortions – he thinks that fetuses, embryos, and even zygotes are “persons” (which would make women aborting them murderers) – though he’d settle for getting the Supreme Court out of the matter and leaving it up to the states. (Analogous, on his reasoning, to leaving the question of allowing murder up to the states.)

    Actually, for the most part, murder is “left up to” the states. Although there are exceptions, most murders are not crimes under federal law. However, this whole thing is an irrelevant red herring, for the reason I gave above — it is absurd to take an issue on which there is no real consensus among libertarians, and then use one’s position on that issue to determine who is more libertarian. To say that someone who is pro-abortion is “more libertarian” than someone who is anti-abortion (or vice versa) is like saying that a Catholic is “more Christian” than a Protestant. It simply begs the question.

    Perhaps Johnson isn’t (though I don’t know what exceptions you’re thinking of); but there certainly is a difference between those exceptions, whatever they are, and what Castle is campaigning on, which is a “closed border”: no legal immigration, period.

    I already conceded that Johnson is more libertarian on immigration than Castle is. But Johnson is not an open borders guy. For example, according to an interview he did in 2011: “The Governor supports a 2 year grace period for illegals to get work visas, after which those without work visas would be deported. He also believes in a “1 strike and you’re out policy” for legal immigrants who violate the terms of their stay in the United States.” While there are some quotes where he sounds like more of an open borders guy, those were from about 10 years before the above quote. Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Gary_Johnson_Immigration.htm

    …it doesn’t even make sense – eliminating “government involvement” in marriage means eliminating “government involvement” in divorce. The idea that government should not be involved in enforcing contracts of any type may be attractive to anarchists, but it’s not *prime facie* the “correct libertarian position”.

    I said the correct libertarian position is that government should not be involved in licensing and regulating marriage. You can enforce a contract without dictating the terms of that contract. The libertarian position is that anyone is free to enter into any mutually voluntary contract. However, that contract is not binding on any third parties that did not agree to it. So, if a business wants to recognize some marriages as legitimate and not others (say, for the purpose of offering spousal benefits to their employees, or giving discounts to newly married couples, and so on), then they should be free to do so.

  36. Amy

    Richard Winger, govt. does not and should not be involved in the issue of marriage period. If people are too dumb to come up with private contracts regarding their relationships and who they are leaving their belongings to, that is their problem. Let’s get back to personal responsibility and get govt. out of something it had no business being involved in the first place.

  37. Timothy Yung

    Of course, we all know that Darrell Castle is not more libertarian than Gary Johnson but he is definitely more libertarian than William Weld. Bill Weld supported George W. Bush and the Iraqi invasion. He supported eminent domain. I am really alarmed that he was chosen as the VP candidate. I am likely going to end up voting for Gary Johnson anyways especially because in California, Darrell Castle will not even be on the ballot. Still, I am disturbed by the choosing of Weld. I believe this is the primary reason why Ron Paul has not yet endorsed the LP ticket. The CP ticket is more libertarian than the LP ticket for this reason. If Gary Johnson was going for campaign money and publicity, he would have been better off choosing a libertarian celebrity like Drew Carey or Adam Baldwin.

  38. Cody Quirk

    “Why should we use Castle’s criteria? It makes much more sense to look at the totality of their positions and see which one is actually more libertarian, rather than limiting ourselves to a few issues that Castle just so happened to throw out during an interview.”

    Yeah, and on the ones dealing with religion and social issues in particular- he is automatically disqualified from even being considered semi-libertarian; for one, he voted to approve and is a obvious supporter of his party’s 2016-2020 platform. Despite his carefully vague and selective rhetoric -he would certainly implement it if elected to the White House, which makes him as dangerous as Trump when it comes to domestic policy.

    I don’t give a damn about his crafty ‘political’ positions; his personal opinions borders on ultra-conservative authoritarianism, and regardless of how one conducts him/herself in any political/government position, their personal opinions and prejudices will end up affecting their conduct and performance in their duties one way or another, regardless.  

    Sorry, but I’d rather drive a car that is cosmetically ugly, yet runs well and has an excellent safety record -over one that cosmetically looks like a hot-rod, yet has so many mechanical and safety issues, along with a record of multiple accidents/breakdowns that it’s a literal death trap. 
    The latter is Darrell Castle and what he represents.

  39. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Does anyone have the text of the 2026-2020 CP Platform? It’s not on their site.

  40. Mark Nakou

    Whether Castle is ore libertarian than Johnson or not is highly debatable! There is a difference between someones “stance” on an issue and whether he believes his opinion should be mandatory.

    Let’s examine a little bit of objective reasoning for a moment. Being pro-life or pro-choice doesn’t necessarily mean a person believes abortion should be legal or not. Johnson believes it should be legal, but he doesn’t think abortion is a good thing. Castle believes that abortion is wrong, but he hasn’t made any claims to want to outlaw it (that I am aware of). There are plenty of libertarians that are pro-life.

    Johnson: L Castle: L

    Marriage equality: Johnson believes that gay marriage should be the law – which is NOT constitutional, nor libertarian, because a libertarian should have the same opinion that Castle has, where government should have no business in marriage. Castles only stand on gay marriage is that government should not be involved and that churches have a right to decline performing the ceremonies. This makes Castle more libertarian than Johnson.

    Johnson: D Castle: L

    On whether businesses should be forced to “bake gay wedding cakes”- Castle, again, proves to be far more libertarian than Johnson, who is for government forcing private businesses to business against their will.

    Johnson: D Castle: L

    I find it absurd how many people do not equate ‘constitutionalism’ to ‘libertarianism’ because the Constitution (in it’s intended form) is entirely the basis of libertarianism to begin with. While there may be differences in opinion between people who belong to the two parties (Constitution Party vs. Libertarian Party), there should be virtually no difference when it comes to federal policies with social issues.

    By MY scorecard (that is a synonym for “my opinion”), Castle is more libertarian than Johnson by a slim margin.

  41. Paul

    You may be a Gary Johnson supporter but that is about all that will make him a libertarian. His “vow” to be libertarian won’t make him libertarian for sure. Gary Johnson AND Bill Weld are both Democrats. Both of them ran as Republicans in the perspective States but the only reason for that is so they could get on the ticket. The Democrat Party had too many candidates and they would have gotten lost in the shuffle. How in the world do you think they both won in heavily controlled Democrat States? It sure wasn’t because of Conservative policies. Johnson and Weld are nothing more than lunatic Democrats whose “word” can’t be trusted. As for Darrell Castle, he is nothing more than a “benefits chasing” lawyer who represented cases in bankruptcy, disability, social security and workers compensation. I wouldn’t want any of them as my President.

  42. Suzan

    I would like to point out a grammatical error found throughout this post. You have confused the words “then” and “than.” It may seem irrelevant to you, but I see this error all over the internet, and it has become so annoying that I didn’t finish reading your post. This may help you to remember how to use these words: Use THAN when something is MORE or BETTER. “I can throw a ball farther THAN you can.” Use THEN when you are talking about a SEQUENCE of events or ideas. “Let’s clean your room and THEN we will watch a movie together.”

Leave a Reply

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