Gary Johnson Catches the Attention of Libertarians When He Said He Supported Mandatory Vaccines-Here Is Some Clarification

gjohns

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for president, has had some interviews recently that have caused some extra conversation among Libertarians. A few days ago, he seemingly endorsed a carbon tax. Next, a video has shown up where he apparently tells an interviewer that he would support mandatory vaccines if it was a federal issue:

Gary Johnon now supports mandatory vaccinations

Reason ran an article with their take on it: Gary Johnson changes his mind

This caused quite an uproar on social media for Libertarians, most of whom believe strongly in parental choice. Many felt strongly enough that they pledged to stop supporting the Johnson Weld presidential ticket over it.

The chairman of the Libertarian party, Nicholas Sarwark, himself the father of three young children, reached out to Johnson for clarification, and he posted this to Facebook:

Gary Johnson spoke at a rally in New Hampshire today and clarified his position on mandatory vaccinations. He supports parental choice.

I knew this because I talked to him on the phone this morning while he was driving to New Hampshire. My wife and I have three children and our rights as parents to make medical decisions for them are very important to us. I wanted to get clarification on this important issue because of an article that was printed (and rehashed by an army of concern trolls) that made it seem like we disagreed.

After a conversation with him, I am confident that he supports our rights to make medical decisions for our children about vaccination. There are issues where I disagree with our candidate; this is not one of them.

Knowing how important this is to so many of you, I wanted to share.

Mr.Johnson addressed the concerns in a speech in New Hampshire this evening:

Here is more on this evening’s speech in New Hampshire: WMUR-TV

The following meme has shown up on Facebook. This article will be updated as necessary.

gary johnson  vaccines

54 thoughts on “Gary Johnson Catches the Attention of Libertarians When He Said He Supported Mandatory Vaccines-Here Is Some Clarification

  1. Shivany Lane

    Hint:
    When you have to make excuses for something your candidate has said on National Television, knowing that it will be broadcast, you have a problem.

    I am going to compare this to Donald Trump. He says something, people get pissed, then the next day some surrogate comes out and says what he really means was… Then he gets his hand slapped and capitulates and attempts to explain it himself thus obfuscating it further.

    Now I don’t have a fancy degree nor am I anyone special, however this type of behavior has me incredibly concerned with the chose you all made for the Presidential candidate.

    What was it he said about a zombie apocalypse? really?
    Oh and his comment about how much money it costs the taxpayers for Obama to go shopping. what are they going to do? disband the secret service? Drive their own Honda civic to the local Wal Mart? The Secret Service detail which guards Obama does it no matter where he goes. The taxpayers also pay to have both Bush families guarded, Trump,Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Mrs. Carter. am I missing anyone? Oh yeah, we get a discount because Hillary Clinton would have a secret service detail by virtue of being an ex-first lady and also a Presidential Candidate. So she is more fiscally conservative than Johnson!

    langa, may I drop the mic this time?

  2. langa

    What bothers me most about Johnson’s flip-flopping is that it makes him look like a typical mainstream politician. I know some people in the LP think this is a good thing, but I don’t know why. People aren’t going to stick their necks out to vote for a 3rd party candidate if he seems to be the same old same old.

  3. Luchorpan

    langa,

    It’s the same with Rand Paul. Rand’s idea of appearing like a reasonable libertarian was good, but he couldn’t pull it off.

    Rand would have done better running as his father.

  4. langa

    Rand would have done better running as his father.

    I agree 100%, especially this year, when a lot of people really seem to be looking for something different. If Rand had run on a platform similar that of his father, he might have been what Trump turned out to be.

  5. Shivany Lane

    thank you langa 🙂

    I am just really disappointed that I keep seeing these types of comments on facebook, here and on twitter.

    I am a good judge of character and Gary Johnson has this think about his voice. he ends each sentence with a bit of an uptick, as if he is doubting himself and hoping you believe him. Austin Petersen, while young and headstrong was certain of his words. John McAfee, who many of you thought as a clown, is also steady and eloquent. he adjusts his tone of voice and cadence to match the audience. Darryl Perry is passionate. He has the cadence of a radio announcer which also instills confidence in the listener. The late Dr Marc, who I miss so much, was a bit of a prankster too, however when he spoke, he spoke with conviction.

    Gary Johnson was the weakest candidate in the way he spoke, yet he won the nomination. The question is, did you all want someone who you thought was electable (not gonna happen) or just someone who was more mainstream (in a political cycle where people wanted fresh and different)?

    I apologize to Richard Winger. I am not attacking Gary. I am sure he is really a nice guy. Politics is a chess game, you wnat to have your best players on the board. I don’t want these comments to affect our relationship at all since I value it greatly.

  6. George Dance

    “Hint:
    When you have to make excuses for something your candidate has said on National Television, knowing that it will be broadcast, you have a problem.”

    Well, get used to it. We’re approaching an environment in which
    (1) 95% of people are opposed to libertarian positions (no change here); and
    (2) over 50% of people are interested in libertarian positions (big change).

    More and more these things are going to come up.

    “What was it he said about a zombie apocalypse? really?
    Oh and his comment about how much money it costs the taxpayers for Obama to go shopping.”

    Missed those. Did you see the one about Johnson supporting the Drug War? Or the one about Johnson warning about Mormon terrorism?

    This is going to the be new normal, and it has little if anything to do with the candidate(s).

  7. Tony From Long Island

    It disappoints me that he backtracked. Government SHOULD mandate vaccination. Not vaccinating your children puts others in grave danger. There have been outbreaks of Mumps in recent years (if I recall correctly) stemming from unvaccinated children. This is not some new thing. It’s been going on for YEARS.

    Let’s not play the ignorant Republican “I’m not a scientist” crap.

    If we are free to live our lives as we choose unless doing so impedes others from doing the same, then we MUST mandate vaccination.

    I won’t drop the mic. It’s not good for the microphone! Plus, you will all start attacking me anyway … feel free.

  8. dL

    “Well, get used to it. We’re approaching an environment in which
    (1) 95% of people are opposed to libertarian positions (no change here); and
    (2) over 50% of people are interested in libertarian positions (big change).”

    95% of the people are opposed to libertarian positions. 50% of the people are interested in libertarian positions. That’s a non sequitur you just pulled out your azz.

    Here’s what Dance is saying:

    50% of the people are tuned off by the GOP/Dems and may are interested in libertarian positions(true). So, lets offer them GOP/Dem positions! (a conclusion indicating you are either (i) an idiot (ii) on the payroll (iii) cointelpro). Really, lol

  9. robert capozzi

    dL: So, lets offer them GOP/Dem positions!

    me: Oh? Let’s see. Does either party call for legalizing weed? No. Does either party advocate a 20% spending cut? No. Does either party call for either the wars? No.

    The truth actually does set you free.

  10. JayBob

    I’m pro-vaccine, but all of this FUD bothers me….

    “grave danger”? Where is this grave danger? How many deaths have there been as a result of the outbreaks? The largest measles outbreak I was able to find was in an Amish Community in Ohio in 2014. 383 people (http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html) And there were no reported deaths. (http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/18/amish-countrys-forgotten-measles-outbreak.html)

    While I don’t like the idea of mandates at all. Considering that outbreak started because of an overseas trip… Maybe any mandates should be made on overseas travel?

    When it feels like people are sensationalizing the story, I start to worry.

  11. T Rex

    “I am a good judge of character and Gary Johnson has this think about his voice. he ends each sentence with a bit of an uptick, as if he is doubting himself and hoping you believe him.”

    Exactly. He answers questions defensively. Everything from his tone of voice to his choice of vocabulary comes across as defensive, as if he is sorry for being associated with these positions.

    Instead of using the questions as an opportunity to educate the masses, he uses them as a chance to meekly clarify that he isn’t *that* crazy and isn’t going to do anything *that* radical. It does not scream “confidence” or “boldness” to anyone.

    The lesson to be learned? If you are terrified of criticism, running on an unabashedly controversial party’s ticket for president is probably NOT a good choice for you. This is why Johnson was the worst candidate of the bunch.

  12. T Rex

    “Does either party call for legalizing weed? No. Does either party advocate a 20% spending cut? No. Does either party call for either the wars? No.”

    Those positions are good, it’s how he presents them that is bad.

    Asked about weed: “but remember, we don’t support heroin or anything crazy like that.”
    Asked about spending cuts: “but remember, we do support a social safety net and stuff.”
    Asked about wars: “but remember, we do think North Korea is a threat etc.”

    Johnson could take EXACTLY the same positions and phrase them in a way that sounds bold, brainy, and libertarian. Instead he makes them sound wishy-washy and to-be-determined.

  13. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    The only outbreak of mumps that I’ve heard of recently was the one at Harvard last year. Everyone who got sick with it had been vaccinated.

  14. George Dance

    dL “95% of the people are opposed to libertarian positions. 50% of the people are interested in libertarian positions.” That’s a non sequitur you just pulled out your azz.”

    Wrong. It’s not even an argument, just a statement of two different facts.

    “Here’s what Dance is saying:”

    Now, that is a non sequitur, but of course it isn’t what I’m saying (though, no doubt, there’ll be plenty of other people insisting in the future that I really did say it).

  15. George Dance

    T Rex: “Asked about weed: “but remember, we don’t support heroin or anything crazy like that.””

    That’s an actual quote, is it?

    Interestingly, Rolling Stone (which is also concern trolling Johnson) is running with this quote:

    “”Would the world be a better place if all drugs were legalized tomorrow? Absolutely. But pragmatically speaking, you’re not going to go from the criminalization of all drugs to the legalization of drugs overnight”

    Of course, RS is using this quote to claim that Johnson has a stealth agenda, or “slippery slope,” of legalizing all drugs – while you’d use it to claim Johnson is really a “Drug Warrior”. But, hey, there’s no requirement that the concern trolls get their stories straight, is there?

  16. T Rex

    “That’s an actual quote, is it?”

    It is paraphrasing, but not by much.

    “”Would the world be a better place if all drugs were legalized tomorrow? Absolutely. But pragmatically speaking, you’re not going to go from the criminalization of all drugs to the legalization of drugs overnight”

    This is a perfect, PERFECT example of what I was saying! He says something libertarian and then *instantly* follows it with something defensive.

    Imagine if he had simply said, “Would the world be a better place if all drugs were legalized tomorrow? Absolutely.” Not bad right? But of course, he has to add “but practically speaking it can’t happen blah blah blah”

  17. robert capozzi

    TR: Johnson could take EXACTLY the same positions and phrase them in a way that sounds bold, brainy, and libertarian.

    ME: It IS bold to say something like: We need to have a conversation about X. Neck-vein-bulging zealots who think they have all the answers because they have cracked the code by applying one simple moral code are easily dismissed as modern-day soapbox lunatics.

    Open mindedness is a strength. As is humility.

  18. Tony From Long Island

    RC: It IS bold to say something like: We need to have a conversation about X. Neck-vein-bulging zealots who think they have all the answers because they have cracked the code by applying one simple moral code are easily dismissed as modern-day soapbox lunatics.

    Open mindedness is a strength. As is humility.

    EXACTLY! EXACTLY!!!! EXACLY!!!!!

    Austin Petersen wouldn’t be receiving 1/50 of the coverage that Gov. Johnson is receiving and wouldn’t be at even 2% in the polls because of the Smugness and Sanctimoniousness that is typical of many (NOT ALL) Libertarians. They are unwilling to bend even the slightest bit and therefore get nothing accomplished. I couldn’t deal with it anymore and returned to my former home.

    There is MUCH I like about libertarianism – just not as over-the-top. “Compromise” used to be how things got done. Now its . . . “wow, I wish there could be some compromise so stuff can get done . . .”

    Sometimes, it’s the messenger and not the message. For me, it’s mostly the messenger but somewhat the message and it’s unyielding purity.

    It can make me sad, because when I first discovered libertarianism at age 18 (in 1992 – and voted for Marrou), I was excited but eventually I grew disillusioned – mostly by the messengers.

    Wow – this post was all over the place.

  19. T Rex

    Of course, RS is using this quote to claim that Johnson has a stealth agenda, or “slippery slope,” of legalizing all drugs – while you’d use it to claim Johnson is really a “Drug Warrior”. But, hey, there’s no requirement that the concern trolls get their stories straight, is there?

    Did adding the defensive statement at the end (“but pragmatically speaking it won’t happen blah blah”) convince Rolling Stone that his position was any less dangerous? No, it didn’t. So why add it at all? It only makes him sound weak and defensive.

  20. dL

    “dL: So, lets offer them GOP/Dem positions!

    me: Oh? Let’s see. Does either party call for legalizing weed? No. Does either party advocate a 20% spending cut? No. Does either party call for either the wars? No.

    The truth actually does set you free.”

    The democratic party has called for a “pathway to marijuana legalization.” uncheck

    20% spending cut for what? The GOP platform has called for reducing the federal debt for years. uncheck

    TeamGov has not called for ending the wars. it has called for ending a policy of regime change. But it supports many of the current ongoing wars, including the War on terror, The War on ISIS.. uncheck

    The truth does not set you free. I know the truth about many things. The effect of that is not a decrease in obstacles to liberty but rather a type of mocking cynicism about the way of things.

  21. robert capozzi

    dL, I’d not seen the D platform “pathway” statement, but even here, GJ was ahead of the D’s curve .

    As for the Rs on debt, they don’t call for significant spending cuts. J/W does.

    Their position on the wars is most dovish of the 3.

    My guess is nothing would satisfy your apparent need to position Ls on the fringes.

  22. Krzysztof Lesiak

    “The truth does not set you free. I know the truth about many things. ”

    What is the truth? DL, are you talking about travelling down the rabbit hole in terms of the New World Order, or what Gary Johnson calls the “truth.”

    Jehovah Witnesses like to say they have the “truth”, and that was one of the things, along with their anti-political and anti-UN stance, that attracted me to their cult for a few weeks. They were always very warm and inviting at the meetings I went too, but they meet all the hallmarks of the cult, have serious theological issues, their disfellowshiping is Orwellian and makes Stefan Molyneux’s defooing concept look like a theory written by a drugged up hippie at a music festival, they’ve made numerous false predictions about Armegeddon, The Watchtower is replete with Satanic imagery and of course JW founder Charles Taze Russel was a 33rd degree Freemason.

    Of course I’m not saying you are a JW, I’m sure you’re not – I’m just curious as to what your definition of the truth is.

  23. George Dance

    “Did adding the defensive statement at the end (“but pragmatically speaking it won’t happen blah blah”) convince Rolling Stone that his position was any less dangerous? No, it didn’t.”

    He didn’t say it to Rolling Stone. They found it and used it in a hit piece, called (disingenuously) “Why You Shouldn’t Vote for Gary Johnson”. Check it out:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-you-shouldnt-vote-for-libertarian-nominee-gary-johnson-w435712
    I’ll bet most of their reasons are not on your list.

    “So why add it at all? It only makes him sound weak and defensive.”

    Why? For the 27% of American voters in the libertarian quadrant, and (more broadly) the 55% of Americans who want to legalize cannabis; most of whom would consider the suggestion of legalizing “all drugs” a deal-breaker. (The same reason the non-libertarian trollers keep suggesting or saying that he does want to legalize all drugs).

  24. dL

    “My guess is nothing would satisfy your apparent need to position Ls on the fringes.”

    The fringes of what? Libertarian political theory, be it Bastiat, Cantillon,Comte, Dunoyer, Thierry, Thoreau, Tucker, Proudhon , de Jasay, Tullock.?

    Nope…

    The fringes of political theory articulated by Anderson Cooper of CNN.

    Guilty…

    The fringes of opinion of the american people?

    Hardly…

    Now I wouldn’t go to far as to say that the average American shares my political intellectual tradition, but I would proffer that a polled 80% distrust in the federal government authority, 75% belief that the government is corrupt is a damn good starting point to teach it. Present it in a way that is accessible and understandable to anyone w/o having to compromise the underlying message.

    You, on the other hand, as a representative of the Pragmaticrats, operate at the FRINGES of both libertarian political theory and public opinion. Your political theory at best can be described as “Crediblism”==that which is the consensus of Cable/Satellite News opinion news shows. To put it more bluntly, Anderson Cooper tells you what to think(or what not to think).

    Your political outreach is Losertarianism==repackaged GOP politics at < 5%. Hell, at least the GOP wins. You manage to repackage the same shit to come in below statistical noise. No wonder the GOP establishments dismisses you as irrelevant. I would, too. You are a sales rep who can't sell, the sales rep who drinks lots of coffee while talking about closing but never closes.

    Coffee is for closers. And the likes of you have been doing nothing but drinking up the company's coffee…

  25. dL

    “dL “95% of the people are opposed to libertarian positions. 50% of the people are interested in libertarian positions.” That’s a non sequitur you just pulled out your azz.”

    Wrong. It’s not even an argument, just a statement of two different facts.”

    95% of people are opposed to X. 50% of the people are interested in X.

    One of those sentences is not a fact, genius.

  26. dL

    “Of course I’m not saying you are a JW, I’m sure you’re not – I’m just curious as to what your definition of the truth is.”

    Lol…I have no idea how one would construe that I am a Jehovah Witness from what I wrote. On the contrary, I am specifically mocking the use of religious revelation applied to politics. A statement like “the truth shall set you free” applied to politics is nonsense.

    What is truth? Well, I will tell you the truth regarding the State and government authority:

    “To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.”

  27. dL

    “Why? For the 27% of American voters in the libertarian quadrant, and (more broadly) the 55% of Americans who want to legalize cannabis; most of whom would consider the suggestion of legalizing “all drugs” a deal-breaker.”

    If 27% of the American voters are in the libertarian quadrant, then 27% of the voters favor drug legalization. I would like those percentages in a 3-way race. If you do not favor drug legalization, then you are not a libertarian nor occupy any space in the libertarian quadrant. Period. And that percentage would be a bogus statistic/fact.

    You use terms like “deal breaker” but the only place a “deal” exists is in your own mind. There is no deal, potential or otherwise, between TeamGov and the american public. TeamGov is only on the ballot because
    people who do believe in drug legalization put the LP on the ballot.

    Now I will concede that the majority of Americans do not favor drug legalization as a stand alone single issue. However, in a 3-way race, you only need 33%. And I certainly know that more 33% of the people have a negative opinion of the DEA and the FDA. The other mitigating factor is how many people who do not favor drug legalization would actually rank it as the single most important issue? My guess, is that figure would be low. That is, in the overall context of a campaign of issues, it might not be a “deal breaker.”

    So it you went to the Muslim community and said we are going to end the WoT, the surveillance of Muslim mosques, etc, do they think they would say, well, that’s good but my number one issue is continuing the illegality of drugs? If you went to the Hispanic community and said, we are going to shut down all the deportations, we are free and open borders, move across all you like, are they going to say: well, that’s good, but my number one issue is continuing the illegality of drugs? if you went to the African American community and said, we are going to end the militarization of police, we are going to mass pardon the people in the prisons, we are going to setup a division in the justice dept to investigate all police shootings that result in death and prosecute them as murder if not justifiable, are they going to say:well, that’s good, but my number one issue is continuing the illegality of drugs?

    If you make a general appeal: well you may not be for the legalization of drugs but are you willing to go to jail to maintain their illegality, are you willing to have everything you do, all your medical records, your medical history under surveillance to enforce their illegality, are you willing to have everything you own confiscated for mere suspicion in order to maintain their illegality, are you willing to have the DEA the central planner of the pharmaceutical industry to maintain their illegality, if you fall under a condition of chronic pain, or you willing to endure the pain to maintain the DEA’s authority…now what about your wife, you son, your daughter, you mom, you dad, you friends….

    Now, that’s how run a libertarian campaign. As opposed to say having you gonads freeze up in a panic attack of shame and embarrassment if Rolling Stone Magazine says something bad about you. I might crack, Rolling Stone magazine gave The Beatle’s Abbey Road a bad review, so what? Their palette for politics is worse than their discriminating taste for music.

  28. T Rex

    dL,

    I love Proudhon so much I had to put up the full quote:

    “To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”

    But what will Anderson Cooper think?!

  29. robert capozzi

    TR and dL, yes, Proudhon’s quote seems accurate enough on one level.

    The diagnosis might be: We’re fucked. We may well be fucked forever.

    Now what? Play philosophical parlor games? Drag the old soapbox down to the town square, reciting Proudhon’s quote all day?

    That seems to not be indicated to me.

    The better question is: how will this play on Anderson Cooper 360? Politics is a game, not a deontological exercise.

  30. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Tony From Long Island: If we are free to live our lives as we choose unless doing so impedes others from doing the same, then we MUST mandate vaccination.

    You could just as easily argue that when some people drink alcohol, shoot heroin, smoke pot, etc., they impede others’ freedom by getting into accidents — so according to Libertarian Principle! — all those substances should prohibited.

    And you could argue that when some people are hungry, they impede others’ freedom by getting faint and causing accidents — so according to Libertarian Principle! — we must mandate food stamps.

    Indeed, any use of freedom will likely impede someone else’s freedom. That’s how freedom works. Freedom always has good and bad consequences.

    If you want to outlaw freedom whenever there are bad consequences, then you’re talking about a nanny state. Freedom is dangerous. Speech, guns, drugs, everything, can and will be misused. You either accept the cost of freedom, or you embrace the nanny state.

  31. Shivany Lane

    “Are the Republicans or Democrats supporting the legalization of Marijuana/?”

    Who in the Bloody Hell do you think passed the paw in Colorado? Who passed it in Oregon?
    Who got it put on the ballot in California? Who in the hell do you think busted their asses to make sure that 24 out of 51 states have at least Medical Marijuana.

    You are all so busy being taking credit for this position that you forgot to open your eyes to see that it is actually happening. And guess what, it is happening without much in the way of Libertarian support!

    The recent decision by the DEA concerning marijuana had you all up in arms as proof that they will never take it off the schedule one drug list. What they actually did, if you paid enough attention, was loosen the restrictions for testing and clinical trials to find a medical use for it, which we all know is there, but they have to make sure the decision will not be easily reversed by the next administration.

    Let me give you a brief example. In Texas, it was against the law to have sodomy. Sorry for all you delicate flowers who can’t handle the realities of life. It’s a stupid law. We know it is. They knew it was. However it is political suicide and quite frankly, odd, to repeal a law because it is stupid. So they waited until someone was arrested for it. Then those 2 people challenged the law in court. They won. The govt. of Texas appealed, they lost. so they took it to the circuit courts and lost again, after all it’s a stupid law. Then they went to the supreme court. I don’t even think they took the case but either way they lost.

    So the law was stricken from the books. However, not only was this stupid law stricken from their books, it was also stricken from all the states. That is how change happens. Like same sex marriage. Now it is the law of the land .;.. FULL STOP.

    People have been doing research and clinical trie=als on marijuana for decades either with DEA approval or not. They can now present their evidence, through the proper channels and Bazinga, Marijuana is now off the Schedule 1 drug list. It’s fucked up I know, but that’s how the system works. You can fight the system or you can run for office and change it.

    And i don’t have to get used to anything. I didn’t vote for him at the convention and unless he pivots dramatically, i won’t be voting for him in the General Election. He pays a small fortune to campaign advisors. Don’t you think just one of them would have the balls to tell him, hey dude…be a bit more confident OK. And while you are at it, can you look just a little less stoned when you are at the podium?

    Pics up the mic and fixes it…next?

  32. T Rex

    “Now what? Play philosophical parlor games? Drag the old soapbox down to the town square, reciting Proudhon’s quote all day?”

    Putting real libertarians on the ballot would be a start.

    Harry Browne, Ron Paul, and Michael Badnarik were not anarchists, but they were certainly acceptable to me (and, it seems, most libertarians here). I would put John McAfee, Steve Kubby, and numerous others in the same category.

    The problem with Johnson is his presentation sucks and he emphasizes his most UN-libertarian ideas. Baking cakes at gunpoint, taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood…these are EASY issues for anyone with even a mild libertarian streak. The friggin’ GOP is better on those 2 issues…hardly a bunch of “NAPsters”

  33. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Shivany Lane: it is happening without much in the way of Libertarian support!

    Yes, it’s true the LP can’t really take credit for legalized marijuana, or gay marriage, or much of anything else. The Radicals are too impotent to influence Americans, partially — not entirely — because they’re hobbled by the LP’s Respectable/GOP Lite Wing.

    These Respectable Libertarians always cower in the closet until after a “radical” libertarian position is safely accepted by most Americans. Only then do these Respectable Libertarians come out of the closet to claim credit.

    It’s these Respectable Libertarians who gave us Barr/Root, Johnson/Gray and Johnson/Weld. (Actually, I like Judge Gray — but the other four are just dreadful.)

  34. Angelique

    It seems like his “Zombie Apocalypse” scenario is him trying to give himself an excuse to mandate if there is an outbreak of ANY kind. I am heartbroken by this turn of events. I was a huge Johnson supporter, willing to compromise on some things I disagree with. But I cannot in good conscience, support him with his weak stance on the issue.

  35. dL

    “Who in the Bloody Hell do you think passed the paw in Colorado? Who passed it in Oregon?”

    Direct democracy, the people…inspired by a long education/propaganda campaign from the minority. Not a product of the machinations of any political party.

    “What they actually did, if you paid enough attention, was loosen the restrictions for testing and clinical trials to find a medical use for it,.”

    The DEA is a stasi security org. Period. Fuck the DEA. Indeed I would whole heartily embrace the LP replacing its “Party of Principle” byline w/ “Fuck the DEA.”

  36. George Dance

    dL “If 27% of the American voters are in the libertarian quadrant, then 27% of the voters favor drug legalization. I would like those percentages in a 3-way race. If you do not favor drug legalization, then you are not a libertarian nor occupy any space in the libertarian quadrant. Period. And that percentage would be a bogus statistic/fact.”

    Actually, that’s a descriptive claim, which is wrong; whether someone’s in the quadrant or not is based on their response to a bundle of issues. (Those can vary, but for discussion, we can use those used by the Advocates for Self-Government: do you support or oppose (a) gun laws, (b) censorship, (c) sex laws, (d) drug laws, (e) government ID cards; and (f) corporate welfare, (g) trade restrictions, (h) government-mandated pensions, (i) government welfare, (j) taxes. If someone opposes a majority of the first, but supports a majority of the second, the test puts them in the ‘liberal’ quadrant; if the opposite, in the ‘conservative’ quadrant; supports a majority of both, in the ‘statist’ or ‘populist’ quadrant, and opposes a majority of both, in the ‘libertarian’ quadrant.

    Even that’s too simplistic – for example, someone may oppose marijuana laws and support heroin laws, or oppose laws on selling drugs to adults while supporting laws on selling them to children, so it’s not just ‘yes’ or ‘no’. And it doesn’t even cover half the issues – for example, you mention immigration, police militarization, and surveillance – but it’s good enough for discussion.

    Let’s also be clear that this has nothing to do with the Libertarian Party. Claiming that someone who supports drug laws does not belong in the Libertarian Party is not wrong, because it’s not a descriptive statement; it’s a normative one.

    “So it you went to the Muslim community and said we are going to end the WoT, the surveillance of Muslim mosques, etc, do they think they would say, well, that’s good but my number one issue is continuing the illegality of drugs?”

    Let’s say a Muslim doesn’t add the ‘but’ – he’s opposed to the WoT, which is his #1n issue, & he thinks libertarian on that issue; but he’s not in favor of legalizing all drugs. So, is that a deal-breaker? Depends what the deal is. If the deal is voting Libertarian, or give some money to a Libertarian, that would be OK; but he couldn’t run, work, vote internally, or even join the party. His position on drugs is a deal-breaker; for you. As you see it, he’s not a libertarian and doesn’t belong in the Libertarian Party.

    “if you went to the African American community and said, we are going to end the militarization of police, we are going to mass pardon the people in the prisons, we are going to setup a division in the justice dept to investigate all police shootings that result in death and prosecute them as murder if not justifiable, are they going to say:well, that’s good, but my number one issue is continuing the illegality of drugs?”

    Again, if their #1 issue is police militarization and shootings, that wouldn’t be a deal-breaker for them; but it would for you. You’d let them vote Libertarian, or donate money to a Libertarian – but you’d say they’re not libertarians, and don’t belong in the Libertarian Party.

    “If you make a general appeal: well you may not be for the legalization of drugs but are you willing to go to jail to maintain their illegality, are you willing to have everything you do, all your medical records, your medical history under surveillance to enforce their illegality, are you willing to have everything you own confiscated for mere suspicion in order to maintain their illegality, are you willing to have the DEA the central planner of the pharmaceutical industry to maintain their illegality, if you fall under a condition of chronic pain, or you willing to endure the pain to maintain the DEA’s authority.”

    And again: someone who opposes surveillance, asset forfeiture, or the DEA may vote for you, or give money; but if he doesn’t believe in the legalization of all drugs, that’s your deal-breaker: you’d say he’s not a libertarian, and doesn’t belong in the Libertarian Party.

    Now, what about person who supports the legalization of all drugs, but disagree any one of the other issues you’ve raised? Well, then that other issue becomes your #1 issue and your deal-breaker: you’d say he’s not a libertarian and doesn’t belong in the Libertarian Party, either.

    “Now, that’s how run a libertarian campaign.” That could be how you get votes and donations, that time; but it is not how you grow the party. If you started with a 0.5% base, an effective campaign could triple that in terms of vote; but you’ll with the same 0.5% base. So the problem is to grow the base; but that will not be done during elections; or at all, if Party’s response to each issue (not just drugs, but each issue is mentioned) on which the person deviates is to hang up a “Keep out” sign.

    But of course you’ll let those deviants vote and donate to you. The question, though, is: If they’re not welcome in the Party, why expect them to do either?

    “As opposed to say having you gonads freeze up in a panic attack of shame and embarrassment if Rolling Stone Magazine says something bad about you.”

    Actually, I liked the Rolling Stone hit piece; precisely because (unlike most of the hit pieces on Johnson going around) it didn’t simply tell us what he stands for, but allowed him to speak for himself. The above quotes on drugs, for example, were telling the majority of Americans who now support cannabis legalization for adults but not heroin, or neither for children: we disagree, but it’s not a deal-breaker on our end; it doesn’t mean you’re not a libertarian and don’t belong in the Libertarian Party. It’s a welcome sign, not a “Keep Out” one.

  37. dL

    “Actually, that’s a descriptive claim, which is wrong; whether someone’s in the quadrant or not is based on their response to a bundle of issues.”

    I deny the methodology of polling on issues as a criterion for libertarian identification. That’s the Cato/David Boaz “libertarian-leaning” crap that does nothing but rebrand libertarian violations as libertarian.

    A proper criteria for libertarian identification would be the following simple set of questions:

    (1) Do you believe that something done only to yourself is a crime?
    (2) Do you ascribe to regulatory prior restraint of trade?

    That’s it. If you answer both in the negative, you are in the “libertarian quadrant.” If you don’t, you are not.
    You may not like the results. But don’t redefine what it is meant to be a libertarian so as to simply get better results for your GOP think tank(Cato).

    Above, I outlined a strategy of how in a three way race one could potentially win based on ranked preferences even if the libertarian quadrant is small. Your way results in nothing but a non-libertarian result being rebranded as a libertarian victory. Lip stick on a pig. Your way ends with nonsense statements like:

    95% oppose X. 50% are interested in X.

    Of course, what you really mean:

    95% oppose X. 50% are interested in Y.

    What I say:

    95% do not subscribe to X. 33% could vote for X.

    I could justify my statement with a political science paper using scientific political science principles within the field. Of course, the entire argument, either way, is a bit academic because the first requirement for anything is to raise money 2 orders of magnitude greater than a LP candidate has ever raised. Running as “the true republican” against the GOP will never raise anything. You can’t have a more ideal test case than what you have now: Donald Trump vs True Republicans TeamGov. The results: pathetic. Loser pathetic.

    On the other hand, look at the Bernie sanders campaign as a demonstration of what I am saying.

    95% do not subscribe to X. 33% could vote for X.

    Look at the money Sanders raised.

    QED

  38. robert capozzi

    dL: (1) Do you believe that something done only to yourself is a crime?
    (2) Do you ascribe to regulatory prior restraint of trade?

    That’s it. If you answer both in the negative, you are in the “libertarian quadrant.” If you don’t, you are not.

    me: These definitely don’t work for me, at least not on its face. Things done only to yourself are most definitely crimes currently. Whether those laws are good ideas are another matter.

    I guess you’d say that taxes are “prior restraints” to trade, even though they are sometimes assessed after the trade. But where does that get us, politically. Not particularly actionable that I can see, as it seems your setup is ANARCHY NOW! and nothing else will do. Fine for dorm room conversation after a few bong hits, perhaps, but totally removed from the here and now.

  39. George Dance

    Shivany: “‘Are the Republicans or Democrats supporting the legalization of Marijuana/?’
    Who in the Bloody Hell do you think passed the paw in Colorado? Who passed it in Oregon?
    Who got it put on the ballot in California? Who in the hell do you think busted their asses to make sure that 24 out of 51 states have at least Medical Marijuana.”

    Citizens; certainly NOT the Republican or Democratic parties. (Yes, the Democrats now support a “pathway”; that had nothing to do with what happened in Colorado 4 years ago, or even what’s happened in California).

    Meanwhile, there’ve been plenty of Libertarians calling for legalizing recreational cannabis, even though (according to other Libertarians) it violates the Platform. (According to the the latter, one has to talk about “drugs”, not cannabis.)

    “You are all so busy being taking credit for this position that you forgot to open your eyes to see that it is actually happening.”

    Open your own eyes, and see if you can find a Republican or Democrat politician who’s doing or has done as much for the legalize-cannabis movement as Johnson or Weld (or even poor Bob Barr, for that matter). Even a few “libertarian Libertarians” have probably compromised their principles enough to do something to help it along.

    Fortunately, that cause has become identified in the public mind with the Libertarian Party and movement. Deal with it.

  40. George Dance

    Teeth: “Yes, it’s true the LP can’t really take credit for legalized marijuana, or gay marriage, or much of anything else. The Radicals are too impotent to influence Americans, partially — not entirely — because they’re hobbled by the LP’s Respectable/GOP Lite Wing.”

    The ‘Radicals’ aren’t interested in influencing Americans, partially, because they see advocating partial gains as sellouts. Their attitude to the movement for legal cannabis is a good example. “What? They want to *tax* marijuana? Violates the Platform. They want to *regulate* it? Violates the Platform again. And they’re fine with keeping heroin and crack illegal? What kind of Drug Warriors are they?”

    Fortunately, there have been people like Johnson, Gray, Weld, and Barr who’ve gone out on a limb supporting the cannabis movement: a big reason why the ‘Radicals’ are calling them sellouts and Drug Warriors, too.

  41. Shivany Lane

    Yes, the public, WE THE PEOPLE, passed all those marijuana decriminalization/legalization/medical use laws. In California, we passed Marijauna possession of less than an ounce as a misdemeanor with onlt a $100 fine, UNDER A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR!!

    California has always had, until very recently, a parents can choose vaccination statute. It may have varied from county to county, but it was there. It was part of the whole herd immunization theory which the anti-vaxxers are so quick to debunk. Hint to you guys: If the theory gets you what you want, stop debunking it, OK?

    PLEASE READ THIS SINCE IT IS IMPORTANT!

    Last night on the Rachel Maddow show, she was discussing the security briefings that Presidential Candidates get so they can be up to speed should they win the election. Typically, it is juts the R or the D who get these briefings. I wrote to her and said, hey, what about third parties that are pulling a decent number of voters like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein?

    Well last night, she asked that question. So what about third party candidates like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. Shouldn’t they be receiving the same briefings? The Intelligence Guy said, well yes. That is being considered since Gary Johnson is polling close to 15% so he should be treated as equally as the other candidates. This is great news!Q Time to pop open a bottle of Korbel, California Champagne of course. Gary may not be the best candidate, however he is our candidate and he is getting recognition. We should at least be happy about that.

    Now will one of you give him lessons on how to stand up straight, not fool around when stuff is serious and put some balls into his voice like he means what he says!

  42. T Rex

    This is so silly and false. I guarantee you that every radical libertarian in those states voted for pot legalization, despite it being regulated and taxed. I know I did in mine. Having it be legal and taxed is still a large net DECREASE in state power.

    Nobody is disputing that politics is the art of compromise. But again, Johnson and Weld do not even get the EASY questions right. In their recent town hall they could not agree on ending foreign aid. They have previously said they will not defund Planned Parenthood. Sorry, but this is not even “soft core” libertarianism.

  43. T Rex

    “Fortunately, there have been people like Johnson, Gray, Weld, and Barr who’ve gone out on a limb supporting the cannabis movement”

    Johnson DID go out on a limb on the issue, back in 2000, and I’m happy to give him credit for it. He went on C-SPAN and boldly advocated legalization at a time when it wasn’t nearly as popular. (That’s how you influence people…not by being wishy-washy and vague.)

    At the time, the libertarian moderates were probably uncomfortable with the “radicalism” of it 😉

  44. T Rex

    Even when Johnson was a Republican, he did a better job speaking his mind on the issue. Here he is on Bill Maher’s show, back in the day.

  45. Shivany Lane

    You say that Democrats were not instrumental in legalizing cannabis? I guess Gavin Newson is not Democrat. Maybe George Soros jumped the fence or Sean Parker who is largely financing this effort.

    Then there were the 600,000 signatures they collected to get it on the Ballot. There was at last count a little shy of 1/2 million Libertarians in the entire country!

    You do not get to own this issue as your own. Gary Johnson doesn’t even smoke it. He eats it. He said he didn’t get vaping because he eats it. That is an even quicker and longer high that you would get. (Yes speaking from experience).

    Gary Johnson’s Cannabis company was LOSING money when he ran for the nomination. Maybe he was hitting his own stock too much, it happens.

    For your reading pleasure…..
    http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2016/05/sean-parker-marijuana-facebook-napster-legalize.html

    This article even has a nifty little map to show you that most of the damned country allows some sot of marijuana use, but you 1/2 million Libertarians go ahead and pat yourself on the back. When I signed the petition IK was a democrat. I fought for this issue for many years, as a democrat.

    Some of you are so self righteous that you think all Femocrats and republicans are bad and wrong and can’t possibly do anything good. Well let me tell you, having someone like Gavin Newsom, who does not look or act stoned, supporting this proposition goes a lot further than YOUR Gary Johnson standing in front of a crowd and looking and acting stoned half the time. he can’t even keep to his own script.

    Now I will drop that mic again…… I’ll buy you a new one when I finally get a job.

  46. langa

    2 quick but important points:

    1. There is a huge difference between allowing someone into a party and making them the public face of it.

    2. Any definition of libertarianism that doesn’t include foreign policy is worthless.

  47. langa

    And, for the record, my own definition of a libertarian is anyone who believes in A) individual sovereignty (or self-ownership, if you prefer that term) and B) the NAP. It’s a sliding scale. The more consistently you adhere to those principles, the more libertarian you are.

  48. langa

    I use the term “sliding scale” to refer to the fact that it’s a continuum (rather than a binary, “either you’re a libertarian or you’re not”) and to refer to the fact that some issues are more important than others (which is one of the problems with the WSPQ, which treats all ten of its issues as if they were equally important).

  49. dL

    “me: These definitely don’t work for me, at least not on its face. Things done only to yourself are most definitely crimes currently. Whether those laws are good ideas are another matter.”

    Well its not surprising that you are not even a libertarian. The criteria is not a chocolate ice cream taste test. In fact, the position “crime is what the state says it is”==statist.

  50. robert capozzi

    dL, perhaps you are trapped in some sort of alternative paradigm, where anyone who frames things in ways that are different from the way you frame them are “statist,” I don’t know. You might want to consider that possibility.

    Note that ALL I said was: “Things done only to yourself are most definitely crimes currently. Whether those laws are good ideas are another matter.”

    It’s not my “position,” it’s simply a FACT that there are victimless crimes on the books. Philosophically, I can’t justify any of them. Politically, it strikes me as wise to devote some energy in undoing them, and to start with ones where the likelihood of success is highest.

    As a former NAP devotee, I used to be like other NAPsters, lacking any sense of proportion or prioritization. Does anything in life lend itself to progress when we take such an absolutist stance? Do mailroom clerks get promoted to CEO? Do we propose marriage on the first date? Does Don Knotts become The Rock in his first day at the gym?

  51. dL

    “It’s not my “position,” it’s simply a FACT that there are victimless crimes on the books. Philosophically, I can’t justify any of them. Politically, it strikes me as wise to devote some energy in undoing them, and to start with ones where the likelihood of success is highest.”

    I didn’t ask a rhetorical question true/false question whether the laws exist on the books. I asked SHOULD they exist. The fact of their existence is a red herring to the question posed. Your all-cap response “IT IS FACT THAT THEY EXIST” is the bromide of every statist that has defended every bad that has ever been on the books. AND THAT IS A FUCKING FACT.

    And I can give a rat’s ass what you used to believe. I care what you think now. Unfortunately, it is clear that you have rented out your mind to external sources who do your thinking for you. Boy it is soon going to be a sad day in the Capozzi cerebral cortex when the media organs you have proxied out your critical faculties to dismiss TeamGov as henceforth irrelevant. You will be flopping around like a fish out of water, grasping at whatever fringe conspiracy theory you can latch onto to aerate oxygen flow back into that atrophied cerebrum of yours. In between the whining about the irresponsible media polling of TeamJohnson or the CPD fueled conspiracies to find the whereabouts of those blueprint plans for a third podium or the rumored billionaire PAC that is going to do a massive media buy in Maine to save the day, it will all be quite
    an amusing spectacle.

  52. T Rex

    “Do we propose marriage on the first date? ”

    No, but you also wouldn’t go on a first date and say “My goal is to never get married or have a relationship of any kind.”

    It’s not a question of how quickly or pragmatically one moves toward achieving a goal. It’s a question of what one believes the goal is, or whether a goal exists at all.

    When Bill Weld says he wants to continue foreign aid, that is not taking “pragmatic” steps toward the goal of ending foreign aid, it is denying that it is a goal to begin with.

  53. George Dance

    T Rex “”Would the world be a better place if all drugs were legalized tomorrow? Absolutely. But pragmatically speaking, you’re not going to go from the criminalization of all drugs to the legalization of drugs overnight”

    This is a perfect, PERFECT example of what I was saying!

    Oh, it is. Remember, what you were saying was :
    “[Johnson and Weld] “They clarify that they support the War on Drugs (except pot)”.

    So this is a ‘perfect example’ of their alleged support for the War on Drugs.?

Leave a Reply

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