Gary Johnson is a Republican. However, he has (at least in the past) been a dues paying member of the Libertarian Party, has spoken at Libertarian events, and is likely to have the support of many Libertarian and Constitution Party Activists. This was published in Liberty Maven by Marc Gallagher.
Those of us in Ron Paul withdrawal and excited at the prospect of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson running for President in 2012, received some good news today. According to Charles Frohman writing on the Gary Johnson 2012 Facebook group, Johnson is interested in running. Frohman writes:
I met with Gary for a couple hours at his new mansion in Taos, New Mexico, and got confirmation of his interest in running for the 2012 presidency. Like Dr. Paul, the former Governor is a big believer in vetoing unconstitutional laws, and doing everything to allow individuals to pursue their happiness in most any way. Progressives should like his tolerance for alternative lifestyles, and conservatives should like his high standards for govt efficiency and support for local innovative govt solutions.
I suppose it is a bit early to start planning the first Johnson Money Bomb, but this is great news for us Ron Paul liberty lovers looking for a candidate in 2012. There is a lot of time between now and 2012, but this certainly provides hope for the future. In the meantime there is much work to be done with the upcoming 2010 election year. As Wendell Phillips reminds us, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”.
Until then, why not show your support for Johnson by joining the Gary Johnson 2012 Facebook group. As of this writing the group is up to 88 members. You can read more about my assessment of Gary Johnson here.
For those who are interested, you can find Gary Johnson’s new website at: http://www.ouramericainitiative.com.
I also found an official Facebook group that was just created:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gary-Johnson-Our-America/165297924363
He’s the leader that I think our country needs right now.
Welfare benefits associated with state marriage:
1. Reduced income taxes including negative income tax as a result of the earned-income tax credit. Ignore the lower taxes and focus on the negative tax — that’s pure redistributionism.
2. Social Security and other welfare-state benefits transferable to the spouse upon the other spouse’s death. This is an expansion of the welfare state.
3. Expanded state healthcare and other welfare-state benefits for the spouses of government employees (huge).
4. Mandating by law that those same benefits be given to spouses by private employers.
I have another one for you: I should be able to hire or fire someone for any reason I want to. Laws prevent me from discriminating against racial minorities. Do you support adding homosexuals to the list of protected groups in the name of “equality,” and thereby further reducing my legitimate property rights?
You advocate a very unpopular addition to the welfare state (gay marriage)
What are these rights violating additions to the welfare state, specifically? What are gay couple leaching off you by having their marriages officially recognized?
but reject the defense of innocent life on the grounds that a super majority doesn’t view it as a crime.
You must have misunderstood me. I don’t oppose the defense of innocent life. I oppose attempting to defend it through very ineffective means, and expanding the size and scope of the state in the process.
As someone who views abortion as the taking of innocent life, you can engage in a variety of tactics. Some of them involve the state; I would condemn those on both practical and moral grounds. Some might involve terrorism. I don’t necessarily attack it on moral grounds, but as a practical tactic, it is more likely to turn the general public against you.
The most effective tactic would seem to me to be moral suasion – blockades, informational campaigns, boycotts. All those are legitimate. If
that’s not strong enough for you, and the only acceptable methods are violent – either the state or terrorism – go with terrorism. It’s less destructive on balance.
Adding gay marriage to the welfare rolls would only INCREASE the extent to which the state uses its stolen resources to discriminate — to discriminate against the unmarried, for example.
Let’s first spell out what this discrimination against the unmarried consists of. Then, go ahead and explain why you think having fewer unmarried people would increase this discrimination.
Illegitimate. The information is not force.
You really don’t see your hypocrisy here. You advocate a very unpopular addition to the welfare state (gay marriage) but reject the defense of innocent life on the grounds that a super majority doesn’t view it as a crime.
Adding gay marriage to the welfare rolls would only INCREASE the extent to which the state uses its stolen resources to discriminate — to discriminate against the unmarried, for example.
I don’t want a Bolshevik revolution, so that history is only relevant to say that the moderate “reforms†under the Czars led to one of the most evil governments in human history
No. The point was only systemic to the nature of change. We can look at other examples, for instance from the field of religion, if you wish.
Yeah, and it was infringements on those freedoms — NOT the equal grant of welfare benefits — that led to Revolution. Another horrible example.
Incorrect. Infringements on freedoms where pandemic throughout the world, and all of history. On the contrary, the American colonists were so relatively free that they felt empowered to rise up and take it further, by becoming even more free.
And that is not in any way to suggest that they instituted perfect freedom themselves – far from it. But they made a step, and it was not because they had been reduced to North Korean like oppression – but because they were already relatively free, and feeling their oats.
YOU advocate MORE force being used in the name of “equality†— which is a step in the wrong direction.
No, I advocate the state not using its stolen resources to unfairly discriminate against people. Hardly the same thing.
Of course, when it comes to the issue of prenatal murder, then you say we need to wait until everything is perfect in the world. You are making the argument FOR the state initiating force and AGAINST the state (which has a monopoly on the service) preventing the initiation of force against the innocent.
If I thought that the state would be a good way to solve the problem, I wouldn’t be against it being involved. Absent a popular concensus, I only see it leading to back alley abortionists and self-mutilation.
The only thing the state can do is become increasingly violent, nosy and deatructive in seeking to destroy an activity which many people do not see as wrong. And as it becomes more violent, nosy and destructive, in no way would it limit exhibiting those qualities only to abortionists, abortion information providers, women seeking abortions…
Let’s think about how this would play out. Someone up above mentioned that information about self-abortion would spread through the internet (and, let’s say, by phones and text messages). So the regime’s next response is to try to censor and monitor the internet and phones more. Word about unlicensed abortionists would spread by word of mouth; the regime would need a network of undercover agents, spies and informers.
Naturally, all of this activity would have to be funded. That would not be through voluntary means. Since the state would already have efforts underway to police communication methods and social networks more thoroughly than now, do you imagine for one minute it would not also turn those methods on a wide variety of other targets? Unlicensed drugs, unlicensed migrants, unlicensed contractors, the cash economy – the list is endless.
The state is a very blunt instrument, and a very powerful one. Let’s find a better way.
I don’t want a Bolshevik revolution, so that history is only relevant to say that the moderate “reforms” under the Czars led to one of the most evil governments in human history (second only to our own, perhaps).
Yeah, and it was infringements on those freedoms — NOT the equal grant of welfare benefits — that led to Revolution. Another horrible example.
We should push to chip away at the state’s initiation of force against people and property. YOU advocate MORE force being used in the name of “equality” — which is a step in the wrong direction. Of course, when it comes to the issue of prenatal murder, then you say we need to wait until everything is perfect in the world. You are making the argument FOR the state initiating force and AGAINST the state (which has a monopoly on the service) preventing the initiation of force against the innocent.
I like Ventura’s style better. I’m leery because he always runs as a great candidate (mayor, governor) but does not govern that way.
Lessons from the Ron Paul campaign:
You need a strong ground game in Iowa and New Hampshire. Be there early and often, in person. Have your get out the vote operation very solidly established, with multiple backups.
The Jefferson County, Iowa Ron Paul group did a good write-up about what worked for them; it was the only county in the state Ron Paul won.
Find a hook to get crossover voters, like Ron Paul did with standing up to Giuliani on foreign policy. Johnson has a built in hook with drug policy. Make a point of confronting the establishment very visibly.
Then, roll with it. Instead of capitalizing on that energy, Ron Paul used the money he raised for ads for atrocious migrant-bashing in an ill-advised effort to get the Tancredo vote. NO. Once he had the money, he should have made antiwar ads. Johnson should make anti drug war ads and get those independent and crossover voters to the polls.
Ron Paul sent them to the Democratic primary to vote for Obama (and, ironically, made it possible for some of them to vote for McCain) because he did not capitalize on his strengths in his NH advertising.
The best chance either campaign has to make a splash is by registering a lot of new voters and getting them to the polls. I’m available for consulting and implementation.
On paper Gary Johnson looks good, but I was at the Rally for the Republic and he didn’t exactly set the world on fire with his speech. It looked more like watching Dave Berry run for President. Soon after Jesse Ventura got on the stage and brought the house down. Now maybe that’s because the crowd was mostly anarchists and truthers, but you noticed the difference right away. For Johnson to be successful, he needs to restablish the Ron Paul coalition and hope that is ensconsed enough in the party to carry him to victory not just out West but in New England, the urban Mid-Atlantic, and Upper Midwest. In other words, Johnson has to do just as well in New York City and its suburbs as he would in New Mexico. Winning New Hampshire would be an absolute must.
It is nice to see that if Ron Paul doesn’t run in 2012 there is another qualified candidate who can carry the torch. With the Campaign for Liberty fully established with well-trained precinct committeemen around the country, I expect whoever runs for the nomination with the CFL’s endorsement to be more successful than Ron Paul was this year, especially in the first few primaries.
Same thing with the USSR, btw: it fell not when it became unbearably totalitarian, but when it had already made many liberalizing reforms.
reforming evil institutions to make them kinder and gentler is a step in the WRONG direction.
You might be thinking this because you have a mental image of things needing to get really, really bad before they can get better.
But that isn’t the way change generally happens. Czarist Russia already underwent many reforms prior to the revolution. Then Menshevik controlled Russia made further moves in the direction the Bolsheviks wanted, but not far or fast enough.
The American British colonies were in many ways the most free place on earth at the time of the revolution. But not free enough.
We should absolutely push to reform evil institutions to make them kinder and gentler. That will hasten their fall, not prevent it.
JD: Didja know that West Virginia seceded from Virginia and was accepted as a state by the north in 1863 with a constitution that provided for the gradual elimination of slavery?
GE: Err… This isn’t my understanding (but I could be wrong). My understanding is that West Virginia was born of one of the evil Lincoln’s illegal machinations.
PF: Both are correct, it just depends on whicfh angle you look from.
Didja know that West Virginia seceded from Virginia and was accepted as a state by the north in 1863 with a constitution that provided for the gradual elimination of slavery?
Yes.
In February 1865, Tennessee adopted a new constitution abolishing slavery. The Confederate Congress abolished slavery on 13 March 1865, as I recall. Shortly before Richmond fell.
In other words, when the handwriting was already on the wall, as opposed to a couple of years earlier, when much of Europe would have gotten involved on their side – but for their insistence on preserving slavery.
You might like Jeffrey Rogers Hummel’s book “Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men.†It covers the period and much of the legislation.
I did like it. It’s been a while.
Rather an alarming number of falsehoods are told about this matter. The Confederate Congress did emancipate all slaves in Confederate territory. They also conscripted all adult male blacks. These matters are often conflated by revisionists.
Conscription = slavery.
Although it is way too early to tell, Gary Johnson is probably as good as the GOP will get given the people who are considered to be key players in the party. Even if he didn’t win the nomination, I think a lot of Republicans would benefit from hearing his views on a bigger stage.
Err… This isn’t my understanding (but I could be wrong). My understanding is that West Virginia was born of one of the evil Lincoln’s illegal machinations.
I don’t agree. It is the point. And reforming these evil institutions to make them kinder and gentler is a step in the WRONG direction.
I never said they were different. Government should be out of marriage (and everything else), so I have no interest in making government-marriage more fair (and thus more legitimate).
I wouldn’t advocate that, but I wouldn’t mourn the re-passage of such laws. That would spark a big discussion on “should the government be involved in marriage,” and “well you know, the governmetn first got involved in marriage for this reason,” etc. It would rally people to call for the separation of marriage and state. Yeah, I think it’d be a good thing if laws against interracial marriage were reimposed. (Wow, I can see that comment being taken out of context in the future). At the very least, there’d be fewer state marriages, which, just like fewer welfare recipients, would mean less government force being initiated against the innocent.
I do wonder why he won’t run LP
Why marginalize himself off the bat? Ron Paul was able to get a lot further as a Republican candidate than as an LP candidate, mainly because he was able to get into nationally televised debate with leading presidential contenders.
Also, the LP process is very nasty, petty and unpleasant. We’re a bunch of ornery individualists, and it must not be very fun to run for the thankless job of representing such a contentious, ungrateful, and powerless bunch to a skeptical, dismissive, and even contemptuous general public.
Paulie, try wikipedia. Didja know that West Virginia seceded from Virginia and was accepted as a state by the north in 1863 with a constitution that provided for the gradual elimination of slavery? You could…look it up.
In February 1865, Tennessee adopted a new constitution abolishing slavery. The Confederate Congress abolished slavery on 13 March 1865, as I recall. Shortly before Richmond fell.
You might like Jeffrey Rogers Hummel’s book “Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men.” It covers the period and much of the legislation.
Rather an alarming number of falsehoods are told about this matter. The Confederate Congress did emancipate all slaves in Confederate territory. They also conscripted all adult male blacks. These matters are often conflated by revisionists.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Gary_Johnson_Drugs.htm
Okay, Johnson lost me:
“Zero tolerance for violence against government employees”
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
Any such “violence” is really retalitory, since state employees are criminal in their existence. But seriously, they should deserve SPECIAL rights? Fuck that.
State-mandated segregation and the state’s non-recognition of the “right†of gay marriage are totally different issues.
No. I meant specifically, regime school segregation, military segregation, and so forth.
Saying you are against these institutions existing, is besides the point. They exist, and we currently have no power to make them cease existing. We do have some power to influence whether they will discriminate. Same with state marriage.
“Interracial” or interfaith marriage is no different in this respect that gay marriage.
State-mandated segregation is a violation of property rights. Returning to it, although “good†in the sense that it would further reduce the evil state’s credibility, would = the initiation of force against all those affected (most notably the property owners who wanted to serve people of all races).
Leave property owners out of the equation, and let’s talk only about segregation on the state’s own facilities.
On the other hand, it is the state’s equal recognition of gay marriage (welfare) “rights†that would initiate force — not their failure to do so on an equal basis.
What rights does it violate, that its recognition of “interracial” or interfaith or inter-eye color marriage (or whatever) doesn’t?
Or, perhaps we should advocate that the state should outlaw “interracial” marriage again, so as to make the state less legitimate?
Paul has been and is a pretty vociferous anti-drug war person, too. Is Johnson for flat-out legalization? Paul is and has been for a long time.
Life begins when I see a hot chick and decide I want her to receive my jism. It would be wrong of her to choose death after this point. Downright criminal, even!
State-mandated segregation and the state’s non-recognition of the “right” of gay marriage are totally different issues.
State-mandated segregation is a violation of property rights. Returning to it, although “good” in the sense that it would further reduce the evil state’s credibility, would = the initiation of force against all those affected (most notably the property owners who wanted to serve people of all races).
On the other hand, it is the state’s equal recognition of gay marriage (welfare) “rights” that would initiate force — not their failure to do so on an equal basis. So the two issues are just as different as marijuana and abortion.
I have been taken for a Lincolnian and a neo-confederate within about 5 posts.
No. I know better than that.
Except where (1) the discrimination is largely popular, and (2) it pertains to very small human beings who have the “internal discrimination†of being legally murdered by their mothers.
I have no such exception. As with slavery, or gay rights, monopoly government is a hugely sub-optimal solution. Can I admit to not having all the answers? Well, I don’t have all the answers. I think a free society will do a better job of figuring them out, and I think the more free a society is, the better it will do. But it’s going to be messy no matter what.
I think discriminatory laws against gays undermine the legitimacy of the state.
So does state-sanctioned segregation. I hope this doesn’t mean you’ll call for bringing that back next, just so as to delegitimize the state.
I mean, think of all the fucked up things the regime can do to make itself less even legitimate. You favor all of them, for this purpose?
Not me. I think discriminatory laws against gays undermine the legitimacy of the state.
Jesus. That’s all I meant. I have been taken for a Lincolnian and a neo-confederate within about 5 posts.
Except where (1) the discrimination is largely popular, and (2) it pertains to very small human beings who have the “internal discrimination” of being legally murdered by their mothers.
Should the free South have waited to end slavery until it was a super-majoritarian position?
No. Nor do I think it would have been able to do so. Economic reality would have set in – probably sooner rather than later.
And what “free south”? Had the CSA regime succeeded in seceding from the USA, it would have been free of the USA regime, but the people of the south would still be under the yoke of the CSA regime. It would then be incumbent upon them to fight their overlords, masters and slave owners – the CSA regime or their local plantation owners, and every level in between.
The CSA regime was not the place to look to for freedom, and neither was the USA regime. They are slavers, and any freedom they deliver is just another form of slavery.
even while he agitates for equal welfare benefits for homosexual marriage (which is NOT accepted by even a majority, much less a large one).
I agitate against institutional discrimination by government. I would much prefer to get rid of government altogether, but in the meantime, I would prefer if at least did not discriminate.
Similarly, I oppose the existence of government schools, but while they do exist, I oppose them being segregated or teaching religion as gospel. And, yes, I do agree that the majority vote is not the ideal solution to any of these problems.
Ultimately, the South decided that the war wasn’t about slavery, and the north did, too. The Confederate congress voted to end slavery and the north continued the war.
I was unaware of that. Do you have a source on that handy?
No doubt. But those aren’t the issues at hand here.
Clearly, as bad as the South was, it was the lesser of two evils in that uncivil war. But that isn’t the point: Should the free South have waited to end slavery until it was a super-majoritarian position? Paulie seems to think so, even while he agitates for equal welfare benefits for homosexual marriage (which is NOT accepted by even a majority, much less a large one).
I think the South had a large number of economic reasons for fighting against the north, including a tariff that deliberately funded the entire government on their backs. It is also the case that the South fought for a constitutionally limited republic, while the north fought for a unitary central state.
Slavery is abhorrent in all its forms. However, ready or not, manumission of slaves did not require a war. The other countries of the world managed quite ably in ending slavery without fighting destructive wars.
Ultimately, the South decided that the war wasn’t about slavery, and the north did, too. The Confederate congress voted to end slavery and the north continued the war.
With regard to technology to end the abortion controversy, I believe that many women who believe that abortion should not be illegal also do not like the idea of killing the unborn child. One of the things this technology could do is end the role of government in the controversy. Which would be nice, though unexpected.
I support vigilante action to free slaves.
So do I. But we both know that such vigilante action would be treated as a crime until most people come to agree, by broad concensus, that slavery is a rights violation and/or economically untenable. There’s no way around the struggle having been a struggle.
You still haven’t answered this — Should the South have waited until its populace was “comfortable†with abolishing slavery to do it?
I did answer it. It wasn’t a very good answer, but I’m trying. I don’t have a good answer, and I’m not convinced anyone else does, either.
Let me see if I can do a better job of explaining what I mean:
It all depends on what you mean by “the South”.
Either with government monopoly or without, you have to reach a critical mass of popular support, or your attempted reform will fail.
A ruthless enough minority can force a majority to toe their line – but only through universal slavery, which is non-sustainable.
I’m sorry, but I don’t have a magic wand to rid the world of all injustice, and I don’t think anyone else does either. When societies come into stages of conflict over where rights properly exist, they have to struggle to come to a resolution of that conflict. That struggle can be managed better or worse. I think coercive monopoly government falls under the heading of worse.
Jim’s point is an interesting one. It will show that the pro-life/pro-choice debate is largely a smokescreen for other things. For when this technology arrives, 99% of the pro-life people will oppose it as unnatural, and a good majority of the radical pro-fetal murder crowd will still claim the RIGHT to murder their unborn child — even if it isn’t necessary. After all, it its just HER body and the fetus has no rights, then why shouldn’t she be able to choose abortion instead of the new technology?
However, paulie: You still haven’t answered this — Should the South have waited until its populace was “comfortable†with abolishing slavery to do it?
How can I answer this question without tapping into my belief that animals DO NOT have rights? However, if I DID believe that animals had rights, then I would support vigilante action — just as I support vigilante action to free slaves.
Exactly.
There is a technological solution to the abortion controversy. It ceases to be a controversy when the woman can stop being pregnant and the child can continue to live. Artificial wombs and transplant technology are coming. They’d be here now were it not for gov’t.
Let’s look at a similar situation today. Some people believe that animals should have rights, that they should not be owned by people. What should they do about this belief? Should they act in a vigilante fashion, or seek control of government to force their opinion on others? How effective would either be when most people do not agree with them?
I think they should act with persuasion. Stage boycotts, demonstrations, sit-ins. Maybe some, who feel it is important enough to sacrifice their own life or freedom, should take direct action – but not under any illusion that it will be likely to be free of consequences.
If, and only if, they create a broad concensus that animals have something like human rights, can they attempt to enforce those rights in anything like an effective fashion.
I agree, but that’s a cop-out. Should the South have waited until its populace was “comfortable” with abolishing slavery to do it?
Should we have waited until there was a greater consensus to abolish slavery and mandatory segregation?
Neither was abolished properly, as you well know.
The best solution for slavery would have been to let the south secede and stop enforcing fugitive slave laws. It would have ended quickly and bloodlessly, to the extent slavery in fact ended.
Segregation falls into two categories: that created by government, and that created by voluntary institutions.
I think removing government as much as possible, at all levels, would have done a much better job of ending unfair discrimination than federally mandated desegregation has done.
And it wouldn’t have had nearly as many unfortunate side effects.
I will not claim, or pretend, that the struggle would or could have been easy, either the way it happened, or the way I wish it had.
No and your logic is faulty. A sperm cell left on its own will not become a human baby, nor will an egg. It no more has rights than a ball of earwax.
But once a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine wall, it is a human being. Unlike a sperm cell or a shaving of dead skin, it will grow and mature into what everyone would recognize as a human with rights. There is simply no logical place to draw a line other than conception and implantation. If you accept that a baby can be murdered at 2 months and 29 days gestation, then why not 3 months and 1 day? And if then, why not 1 second before emerging from the vagina? And if then, why not up until the age of 1 or 10 or 100?
Agreed, and the #1 thing pro-lifers who actually care about human life (and aren’t just “pro-life” because they’re anti-sex) should do is MAKE THE CASE that abortion is murder. It is not a tough case to make.
Should we have waited until there was a greater consensus to abolish slavery and mandatory segregation?
haha, I was just f’ing around, paul.
I didn’t think you guys were having a private conversation since it was taking place in the comments below a blog entry.
We’re not. You are certainly welcome to participate.
GE is spot on.
Here is my hardcore feminist view on rape: If the woman decides it was rape, it was rape.
I’d be in trouble. I, for one real life example, had a woman use the the threat of a false rape allegation to coerce me into letting her get away with stealing. And it worked. I let her get away with it rather than deal with a rape trial.
If men don’t like this then they shouldn’t fuck outside of committed relationships or where a contract is present.
Committed relationships are no guarantee against false rape claims. The threat of false rape claims should not coerce people into not having sex outside of committed relationships.
A contract can be signed at gunpoint. If it wasn’t, the woman can later say it was. And what a shitty mood killer, anyway. Fucking contracts?
I know. I didn’t think you guys were having a private conversation since it was taking place in the comments below a blog entry.
While the unborn child is still innocent, the woman has no contractual obligation to the child if she did not consent to sex — and thus the child is “trespassing” (even though he was placed there not of his own will). I think abortion is within the woman’s rights in this extremely rare case.
Here’s how I view this would work in a free society: A woman is allegedly raped. She informs the proper authorities (i.e. a private defense organization) immediately — no waiting six months or even six hours (unless there are extraordinary circumstances). She needs to name or at least describe her attacker, etc. The PDO will then decide whether they believe her and are willing to take the risk — because a private, pro-life interest group could bring charges against them and the woman and the abortionist (who would probably be indemnified by the PDO’s approval). Otherwise, the woman would need to sue for the “right” of abortion — which would be covered by her PDO insurance, of course. The woman would also receive damages from her PDO, which would then have every reason to apprehend the perpetrator and make him pay restitution.
Here is my hardcore feminist view on rape: If the woman decides it was rape, it was rape. If men don’t like this then they shouldn’t fuck outside of committed relationships or where a contract is present.
I mostly agree with this. I’m not for banning abortion on a national scale or even so much in my state — I’m for abolishing the nation and the state that make abortion artificially legal.
Then we agree. But I was addressing Trent.
I mostly agree with this. I’m not for banning abortion on a national scale or even so much in my state — I’m for abolishing the nation and the state that make abortion artificially legal.
Poor girl. She clearly deserves the special right to murder the byproduct of her lack of self-respect.
And a much higher instance of socialism.
If abortion is not bad, then who cares if rates are high or low? If it is bad, then why? Because it’s murder? No amount of murder is tolerable.
The best way to reduce murder and theft for their to be a strong, free-market economy; strong families and private institutions, etc. — these things are more effective than laws… But that does NOT mean that it should be legal for me to kill you or steal from you, Richard. Small people have rights, too.
Marijuana is a drug that does not harm to anyone except possibly the person ingesting it. Abortion is the internal butchering of a small human being. One is a victimless non-crime, the other is one of the most barbaric actions a person can engage in. There is simply NO comparison between the two.
Why? Because I’m a true idealist? Is that why I’m a troll? You support direct democracy, stop hiding that fact.
1. I never gave definition for libertinism.
That “Yes, there is” was for Trent saying that what I was describing was “no system.” I wasn’t talking about libertinism.
2. You’e an asshole, Paulie. Go suck Gravel’s cock and support direct democracy with his fat, socialist ass.
My definition of libertinism: the free market without natural rights.
Not voluntaryism 😉
I don’t care what you do, dickhead.
LOL @ LJ
Libertarian Joseph // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:10 pm
There is no such thing as a “libertine system†(is there? lol)
Yeah, there is.
Voluntaryism
Oh and …
you’re a god damn moron, Paulie.
When you’re right, you’re right. If I wasn’t a moron, it wouldn’t have taken me this long to put you on the ignore list.
Oh well, better late than never.
Maybe I have chemical weapons? There is not necessarily strength in numbers.
You said you support “social consensus,†that’s direct democracy.
Noper. Two different things.
If most peple want abortion illegal, you think it should be illegal, yes?
When did I say that? If overwhelming majority of people come to believe it is murder, neither government nor you and a few friends will be
able to effectively protect abortionists. “Should” has very little to do with it.
Yeah, you are.
Wasting my time on you? True.
I never did that, you fool. I wasn’t taling about libertinism, I asked Trent if there was even such a thing as a “libertine system,” you’re a god damn moron, Paulie.
LJ defined libertinism and voluntaryism as being the same thing in comment 59.
That definition was incorrect.
Who needs glasses again?
I already have mine, and they work just fine, thanks.
I retract my perverse defense of Libertarian Joseph. I didn’t realize he had such flawed logic.
75 @ 73
I was talking about “libertinism,” not libertarianism. Get some glasses
Comment 59.
You said you support “social consensus,” that’s direct democracy. If most peple want abortion illegal, you think it should be illegal, yes? Yeah, you are.
I never defined libertarianism as that. Libertarianism isn’t even ancap. You’re a fool.
In other words, you support direct democracy.
Fail again. I support no such thing.
Voluntaryism is about voluntary social interaction.
Previously, you defined it as libertinism. Look up both words.
dumbass
Yes, you are. But it’s creepy when you talk to yourself in public like that.
🙂
You’re no anarchist, Paulie.
“Social concensus to create a punishable situation is then important, otherwise you will be in a state of constant war, which makes commerce and civilized life impossible.”
In other words, you support direct democracy. Oh man
You are an anarchist, if I remember correctly–so you dont believe legislation should EVER be used to solve ANY issue.
But even in anarchist theory, aggressing on another is a crime that is punishable.
Correct. However, in anarchism you have to carry out a cost/benefit/risk calculation as to what extent something is worth fighting over. Social concensus to create a punishable situation is then important, otherwise you will be in a state of constant war, which makes commerce and civilized life impossible. Therefore, you’ll have to learn to pick your battles.
Since war is not a good way to live, and is bad for (non-war) business, peaceful solutions have to be found. Persuasion, not force. When the persuasion has by and large succeeded, (non-monopoly) security forces and courts can mete out punishment. Until then, you only invite war by trying.
However, I also acknowledge that monopoly government exists for the time being, and seems unlikely to go away immediately.
Thus, what do we do in the meantime? I don’t believe the institution of government is the best way of solving any social problem, but I have less objection to it trying to solve problems where there is a clear aggressor and a clear victim. Until that concensus exists, government is an especially bad way of trying to establish it or solving any problem.
Afterwards, it’s still bad, but less so.
Voluntaryism is about voluntary social interaction. How does legislating abortion fall into that category? hmmmm? dumbass
No. Look it up, I won’t do your homework.
Paulie, you’re ignorant of what voluntaryism is. Gotcha
It appears that you fail, buddy
It’s not Libertarian Joseph’s job to make sure other people have their rights protected. He has no moral obligation to anyone but himself. Believing anything else is altruistism, which is just believing in socialist morals.
There is no such thing as a “libertine system†(is there? lol)
Yeah, there is.
Voluntaryism
Fail.
And how would anti-abortion laws help? It would just go to the underground, like drugs.
I would care if it were my child. But strangers, why? Sounds like socialism to me.
And, your point is? Who cares about what you think when the question remains, what are you going to do about it?
A thing is alive when it can perform all basic life functions for its self; once it is alive it has rights. If a fetus at 8 months can survive without being connected to its mother it is alive, if it cannot it is not alive. As to when something is alive I don’t know because I am not a scientist or a doctor.
There is no such thing as a “libertine system” (is there? lol)
Yeah, there is.
Voluntaryism
http://kob.com/article/stories/S659466.shtml?cat=516
Gov. Johnson says he wont make comments on his possible presidential race publicly until after January when Obama is inaugerated.
Libertarian,
Not caring if your supposedly libertarian system allows people to be killed without any reprecusions—that is not libertarian. It really isnt even libertine, it isnt any system at all. It isnt even anarchism—it’s a system where rights do not exist.
We should have a Libertine Party though. 🙂
I have to care about strangers in order to be a libertarian? Feelings has nothing to do with libertarianism.
“I don’t care.”
Point proven. Libertines, not libertarians.
paulie,
You are an anarchist, if I remember correctly–so you dont believe legislation should EVER be used to solve ANY issue.
But even in anarchist theory, aggressing on another is a crime that is punishable.
I don’t care.
“Why would you care if a stranger has an abortion? It’s not your genetic mass. ”
Why would you care if a southern farmer kills his “nigger”?
See how base this arguement is?
The majority of society didnt think killing “niggers†was murder in the 1800’s, but it still should’ve been illegal.
I don’t know that a “majority” of society thought that, but if they did, legislation was not the first step in correctly dealing with it.
Why would you care if a stranger has an abortion? It’s not your genetic mass. Mind your own business.
Eternaverse,
So if it can be c-sectioned out, it has rights? It attains rights by passing through the vagina? Seems like voodoo magic to me.
Also, infants cannot live without direct support of another being. Hell, some 4 year olds probably couldnt live without the direct support of another being. None of these beings have rights? It is ohk to shove scissors in these beings’ heads?
Something only has rights if it is an independent being that can live without the direct support of another being; until it is born a fetus is part of its mother there for it has no rights of its own. Would you consider an egg or sperm cell to be alive and deserving of rights?
“There is no such consent around abortion.”
This has no bearing on whether it is murder or not. Killing an infant is unconscionable–as is killing any human,unborn included.
Anyway, it’s funny you guys post this NOW, since it’s been up for a few days over at RPF:
See above. I was going to let Trent have first crack at it, since he is personally involved. But as of the time I posted it, I figured too long had gone by without us writing something about it.
“An overwhelming majority must first be convinced that abortion equals killing someone, otherwise trying to stop it through government will be no more effective than prohibition”
This is hogwash. Whether or not the majority of society thinks it is murder is irrelevant. The majority of society didnt think killing “niggers” was murder in the 1800’s, but it still should’ve been illegal.
As long as we’re talking about extenuating circumstances. In both the cases of infants and pre-born humans, both infer a positive obligation on the “parentsâ€. Why is one a parasite and the other not? Do “parents†have a right to leave their parasitic infants out in the woods if they so choose?
Good question. One answer is that in the case of an infant, someone else can immediately take care of it. But I’ll grant that is not always necessarily true.
The real answer is because society has a concensus that infanticide is murder. There is no such consent around abortion. Trying to legislate it is putting the cart before the horse.
His “pro-drug” stance is courageous and will do alot to endear him to the younger generation, the Ron Paulers, and the middle-aged folks that lived through the 60s and 70s.
“If he intends to do something though, he needs to start getting on the radar now to raise his profile.”
We’re trying to get him to CPAC ’09 and the Mises Circle in Houston in Feb.
The “abortion rights” that so many libertarian advocates try to stand behind are really just a libertine right to be free of consequences. They have sex, create a human life, and then want to be free of the consequences that are sometimes associated with those actions. No personal responsibility here, no libertarianism.
Oh here we go. Another pro-life/pro-choice debate. Anyway, it’s funny you guys post this NOW, since it’s been up for a few days over at RPF: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=167129&page=5
I think he would be a tremendous improvement over Ron Paul, (in practical terms, not idealistically, relax) even if he kinda borders on egomania. At least it’s a subtle, relatable egomania- not senior senility like Gravel or the “crap your pants, ain’t got time to bleed” attitude of Ventura.
If he intends to do something though, he needs to start getting on the radar now to raise his profile. Otherwise, he’ll be shuffled into the bottom-tier and it won’t matter what he does, he’ll be blacklisted in much the same way Ron Paul is… then again, I carry the confidence that he can convey the message without scaring so many people off.
One caveat though: As the people over at RPF have discussed, his “pro-drug” stance will come back to bite him in the ass unless we can find ways to mitigate it now…
Rape negates any contractual obligations. In this case the child, though, is still not initiating force. It is, just like the mother, a victim. In the event a woman has been raped AND her life is threatened, that is a VERY grey area.
As long as we’re talking about extenuating circumstances. In both the cases of infants and pre-born humans, both infer a positive obligation on the “parents”. Why is one a parasite and the other not? Do “parents” have a right to leave their parasitic infants out in the woods if they so choose?
How about rape?
If you make an exception for rape, what does the woman have to do to prove she was raped if she says she was?
If you don’t, doesn’t that make the argument in 36 moot?
And, supposing you are correct: refer back to comment 34.
Compulsory maternity? Someone forced that woman to have sex?
Sex is a contract whereby it is explicitly understood that pregnancy can result. It is that woman (and some man’s) fault that the being is in existence to begin with. She invited that “parasite” or “danger to her life”. Similar to if I invited GE into my house and he said, “Ohk, but my kids might drop by. Like a 1% chance.” I agree that if they drop by, I’m going to lock them in.
Then, by pure happenstance, his kids do drop by. Then I lock them all in and ask them to leave. Naturally, they cant leave because they’re locked in–as was already agreed upon. Then, I cut their brains open with scissors and rend them limb-from-limb in an attempt to get these PARASITES to vacate my personal property. Personal property I invited them onto.
“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?” – Ayn Rand
“Abolition of a woman’s right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State. “- Edward Abbey
Women must be persuaded not to kill others? Since when?
An overwhelming majority must first be convinced that abortion equals killing someone, otherwise trying to stop it through government will be no more effective than prohibition. And if/when there is a social concensus that it is in fact murder, government will not be the only – or best – means of combating it.
No, birth control devices are not easily obtained, if one is a shy and ignorant 14 year old who is afraid to talk to her parents. The Netherlands has a far lower rate of abortion than all South American countries, despite the fact that abortion is legal in Netherlands (along with plenty of easily-obtained birth control devices and information), and it is strictly illegal in South America.
richardwinger,
Women must be persuaded not to kill others? Since when?
Are all methods of birth control not already really,really easy to obtain? Condoms and birth-control are pretty cheap. Are you suggesting that the government should artificially depress their prices? Those who committed self-abortions would be just as guilty as all others who kill people.
Richard, equating abortion to drugs is insulting. Abortion as a libertarian issue doesnt come down to what is MORAL. It comes down to property rights, what is life, and sexual contracts.
Yep.
The war on drugs doesn’t work, and the war on abortion doesn’t work. Women must be persuaded not to have abortions. The best way to reduce abortion is to make all methods of birth control really, really easy to obtain; and for parents to do a good job of teaching their children that it is safe for the children to talk about sex with their parents.
If abortion were made illegal again, the internet would be available to pass on information on how to do a self-abortion. It would be like marijuana prohibition…people learn how to grow their own.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
Which reminds me, we need to have him answer some basic issue-stance questions.
Everything i’ve read says Johnson has a very hands-on approach with his campaigns, as opposed to Ron Paul’s laid back stance.
However, I dont think Paul’s stance was mischaracterized. I think he made it seem “tough” in order to make himself more appealing to social conservatives. He tried to play the game a little, I think.
If his immigration stance is like Paul’s, I hope he won’t let people who don’t understand his stance mischaracterize it in TV and print ads.
GE,
I believe his stance on immigration is the same as Paul’s. Some of his stances have become more radical sense he left office,especially over the course of the Ron Paul campaign.
I’d bet that Johnson only characterized himself as “pro-choice” because he was in New Mexico, a 2-1 Democratic state, and he didnt want people to think he was allied with the Religious Right. But as I previously said, his record is consistently pro-life.
johnlowel = central planning communist and idiot (although I repeat myself). Even if the war on drugs weren’t entirely immoral, the fact is it DOESN’T WORK. No one has the chance to “squelch” anything but freedom, you fucking pinko POS.
No Chance as a Republican, but the LP is his if he wants it. Otherwise it will just be another case of the Ron Paul blue balls.
Not being pro-life will absolutely doom his candidacy. I will support him so long as he supports overturning or ignoring Roe, but he won’t get anywhere in a GOP primary if he in any way characterizes himself as “pro-choice” as it pertains to abortion.
Where does he stand on immigration?
Gary Johnson is the candidate that *just might* be able to bring together a significant portion of the radicals and pragmatists. It will be interesting to see if this story has any traction.
Gary Johnson spoke at the LPWI convention in April of 2002.
Who the fuck knows? If the election were held today I would say no, but the next four years could be very turbulent. How many people accurately predicted the timing of the fall of Soviet communism?
So, in a field with Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Jindal, and Johnson, do you think that Johnson has a good chance at getting the nomination?
johnlowell,
Wanting to regulate what someone places in their own body is pure idiocy. I dont want to tell someone they cant eat arsenic, they cant eat lead, they cant snort cocaine, cant drink alchohol, or can’t eat transfats.
While were on the subject of “mentalitiesâ€, when you have a chance as a government official to squelch the sale of destructive substances like heroin and let them pass you by, you do so with all the social sense of a psychopath.
On the contrary, it takes a psychopath to try to squelch a substance – and it doesn’t work, either.
What next, are you going to have regime stormtroopers regulating people’s diets at gunpoint? Monitoring how much TV or recreational internet time you spend? Where does this shit end, exactly?
I think Gary Johnson sounds like a good idea. I think one of the reasons that Ron Paul didn’t sky rocket to a top tier candidate is because of his position as a lowly congressman. Many voters (including myself, though I would’ve voted for Paul over McCain or Obama if he ran) feel that a congressman is too much of a insignificant position to fill the presidency. But to have a governor would actually add the stamp of legitimacy that I think many liberty lovers are looking for.
Trent,
While were on the subject of “mentalities”, when you have a chance as a government official to squelch the sale of destructive substances like heroin and let them pass you by, you do so with all the social sense of a psychopath. But that’s all too much of libertarianism anyway, isn’t it, Trent, a kind of sociopathology writ large? Oh, and please , spare us the positing of Ron Paul as the sine qua non of authentic humanity. As I’d mentioned to you once before, the man’s an unmitigated schmendrik. But we’ve been over that ground.
It’s all good 🙂
Nah, i’ll just break more on the story later. And don’t say sorry,lol. I waited too long, my fault.
Sorry.
It’s up now though, so feel free to edit (or write another story later), or just add comments.
Yea, I wasnt going to. Thought maybe it was a conflict of interest? I dunno.
I prolly should’ve broken this story back when I discovered it–it would’ve attracted significant attention to IPR,huh?
I gave you plenty of lead time. At this point I figured if you were going to post it, you would have done so already.
Since it seems he’d be unmoved watching the world evolve in front of him stoned,
Is there anything which you don’t think is good for people, yet would not have the government’s goons and guns go after?
after encouraging folks to get stoned.
eh?
johnlowell,
Abortion is pretty confusing as it concerns Gary Johnson. He calls himself “pro-choice”,but consistently supported pro-life bills and issues when he was governor. The New Mexico Right to Life Committee called him “a warrior for the pro-life cause”.
Furthermore, Gov. Johnson does not encourage anyone to get stoned. In fact, he speaks against it anytime he mentions the War on Drugs. To cast anyone who is against the War on Drugs as some sort of pothead-dopefiend shows the capabilities of a mental-midgit. Dr. Ron Paul is also for complete legalization.
🙂 Sorry about the tag. I was just practicing. 🙂
Some Constitution Party activisits, maybe, but he doesnt have much appeal to social conservatives. Despite being pro-life, he just doesnt do much to pander to social conservatives–who prolly wouldnt like him much anyway because of his drug stance. Still, I’ve seen a decent amount of interest from paleocons, so maybe im wrong.
I prolly should’ve broken this story back when I discovered it–it would’ve attracted significant attention to IPR,huh?
Where does Gary come down when it comes to
murdering unwanted children? And what would be his atttiude toward embryonic human life? Would he find the Josef Mengele model acceptable? You just never know how someone might vote after encouraging folks to get stoned.
Gary be able to see himself as a kind Josef Mengele retread? Since it seems he’d be unmoved watching the world evolve in front of him stoned,
Republican, as I mentioned in the opening paragraph:
Gary Johnson is a Republican.
And then I explained why I think this belongs at IPR:
However, he has (at least in the past) been a dues paying member of the Libertarian Party, has spoken at Libertarian events, and is likely to have the support of many Libertarian and Constitution Party Activists.
Which political party??