The following interview with Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson on the Robert Wenzel show is stirring a lot of discussion in libertarian circles, including on this month’s IPR Open Thread starting here.
This post is so that the discussion can have its own thread, leaving the open thread for more general purposes.
A small update on this story as posted by Mr. Wenzel on his site:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/report-gary-johnson-is-reading.html
167 gp: The upstream claim on one of these threads that Cloud is in control of the LNC is unusually crazy for the internet. His visible contributions on LNC-discuss have been extremely positive.
me: I guess that’s a matter for how one reads the word “control.” The members of the LNC “control” the LNC and its activities, near as I can tell. Cloud is now on the LNC. What he posts on a listserv is irrelevant to this discussion.
If Cloud and Howell were somehow involved in the 02 efforts, they if anything are more able to shape the works of the LNC than they were in the intervening years – certainly the last few.
Employing what we might call fuzzy-Phillies logic, Cloud’s “control” and “positive” “contributions” seem to point in different directions in the same paragraph! There may well be some deeply oblique (even coherent!) meaning contained therein, but teasing what you actually mean is often a protracted affair.
@135 LPMass has a local organizer. It is not me.
@163 Your understanding is I am assured by Tennesseans wrong. There were several MA delegates who were told your false claim, and who were most displeased when they learned the truth. (Not me; I thought former Presidential candidates who were still with the party should be superdelegates.) However, Tenneseans at the time were emphatic that they refused to put Browne on the delegation, and made sure their delegation was full so he could not sneak on.
Folks who were on the last LNC, ran for election to something, and lost:
Hinkle
Rutherford
Sink-Burris
Knedler
Mattson
Starr was running for re-election with a gap in between
Then Redpath and Pojunis had to run twice to win once. Root was saved by the Johnson nomination, an expensive payback by Johnson. Salvette had her name circulated as a candidate and didn’t bother to run.
I view it as noteworthy that on the Oregon seating matter Salvette voted on the side of the angels. As an aside, the Oregon seating vote may make it legally impossible for the Oregon Party to place Johnson on the ballot successfully, assuming that they try to do so as is their current desire. The vote creates a challenge that the D and R parties can use to knock Johnson off the Oregon ballot.
Flood was not planning to run.
I would be interested to read what happened between Wolf and Mack and have not seen the details.
I view most of these as victories. Actually, I do not count defeating Mattson as a victory, because I do not believe that there was progress here.
The upstream claim on one of these threads that Cloud is in control of the LNC is unusually crazy for the internet. His visible contributions on LNC-discuss have been extremely positive.
Read LNCDiscussPublic for reality on this.
I think some of them were not happy with his lack of activity at the state and local levels.
JT @ 163,
—–
Phillies: “Harry Browne was seated with the MA delegation,because his own state refused to make him a delegate.”
Refused to make him a delegate? My understanding was that the Tennessee LP had already filled its seats & he wanted to be seated with Massachusetts.
—–
My recollection — but it may be faulty — is that the Tennessee LP did in fact intentionally snub Browne and refuse him a delegate seat. That he happened to live in Tennessee didn’t necessarily mean he had good relations with the state LP. In fact, I don’t think he carried a majority of Tennessee delegates for the 2000 presidential nomination, either.
For some people “success” is measured by making their internal enemies lose.
Phillies: “Harry Browne was seated with the MA delegation,because his own state refused to make him a delegate.”
Refused to make him a delegate? My understanding was that the Tennessee LP had already filled its seats & he wanted to be seated with Massachusetts.
I do remember that he gave a rousing luncheon speech & was applauded by many of the delegates. His speech was one of the best Libertarian speeches I’ve ever heard.
Paulie: “Here, Phillies is taking credit for defeating him.”
If true, that’s an interesting take on his part.
I’d think a real win for Phillies would be getting elected as national Chair one of the several times he has run. He has been rejected soundly every time, of course.
Yes, I think that is what that means. Perhaps also Sink-Burris. If there was anyone else that he meant by that, I don’t know who they are specifically.
160 p, so in this week’s installment of Phill-o-glyphics, GP had “success” in unseating Rutherford. Is that the takeaway?
Oops, I see George answered in the meantime.
I thought of another person he may be referring to, Rebecca Sink-Burris?
I’m sure that Phillies has a list and that he’s checked it at least twice.
I guess he considers the Rutherford “slate” to be the “folks who gave us Carpetbaggers for Eli” — Rutherford is from Indianapolis, and that’s where the convention was that year, again iirc. I don’t know off hand who else he means by that. Most of the Rutherford “Slate” (Knedler, etc) were either not in the LP or not in national leadership ten years ago. Starr was fairly prominent by internal LP standards by then, but mostly just in CA iirc, an he wasn’t on the LNC this immediate past term either – although he is accused of running it from behind the scenes. I don’t recall Alicia being involved at the national level at that time – not sure if she was locally active in TN then. Redpath was around, but he’s still on the LNC. Root wasn’t, and he still on the LNC now. So Rutherford is the on;y one that comes to mind immediately as someone that George may be referring to.
2002: Mr Bergland iirc was seated with his own state’s delegation that year, and was not to my knowledge a carpetbagger. Harry Browne was seated with the MA delegation,because his own state refused to make him a delegate. The Indianans of the Carpetbaggers for Eli, several of whom actually wore their ‘Carpetbagegr for Eli’ pins, were in the MA delegation, all two dozen of them.
Mr Israel lost.
156 p, my goodness, P, this is quite the onion. Who were the “folks who gave us Cs for Eli,” then?
“Carpetbaggers for Eli” was the self-proclaimed name of a group of people who found seats in other states’ delegations after their delegations were filled.
154 p, if true, it illustrates GP’s unique way of looking at things. Bergland, a carpetbagger? Cloud is BACK in control, as is Howell.
There may well be a plausible explanation for his statement, just as there may be one for FEC Gate. Based on the record, it seems unlikely we’ll hear one….
I wasn’t paying very close attention then either. Here’s what I seem to remember, and someone can correct me if I am wrong:
Eli Israel was (Chair? ED?) in Mass, and the party there had a lot of money, candidates, local groups, etc; Michael Cloud and Carla Howell posted some impressive vote totals in runs for government office and in getting 45% to vote to repeal the state income tax. Israel was a friend of theirs and the people supporting him were the Cloud/Browne/Bergland “machine.”
There was already a lot of dissent in the party about allegations of fundraising improprieties and favoritism/conflict of interest against Perry Willis (at least some of which he admitted to) and other people on their team (disputed, iirc).
Then, after 9/11, there was a lot of debate whether the party should take a strong antiwar stance, support the wars, or just not say much about the issue. Again iirc, Eli Israel was on the hawkish side of that debate.
The death knell may have been his flier at the convention (I didn’t attend due to it being crunch time on the medical marijuana petition in DC) where there was an inside page of a foldover that was supposed to have all the people endorsing him, and the printer left that page blank. The was distributed before they realized this.
Phillies was one of the people complaining loudest about Browne, Bergland, Willis and friends, and even wrote a book about it.
Thus, he considers Eli Israel’s defeat to have been a win for him, although he has continued to strongly criticize subsequent national leadership teams.
152 p, thanks. I wasn’t paying attention to such things in 02. Was Hinkle behind “Carpetbaggers for Eli”? Rutherford? Mattson? Redpath (although he’s still on the LNC)?
No, it’s his last name. Eli Israel was a candidate for national chair in 2002. Here, Phillies is taking credit for defeating him.
139 gp: the folks who gave [us] the Carpetbaggers for Eli for the moment having been driven out of control of the party.
me: Is Ad Hoc right? Does Eli = Israel? This starts to sound like an ethnic slur.
@149 Amen!
One point people. The idea of an economic system free of government interference was around a long time before anyone thought of the Austrian School of economics. The Austrian economists are late to the cause.
Today there are many Libertarians who have never read a thing of Mises or Rothbard and never will. Does that make them poor Libertarians? I fucking doubt it.
RC@137,
“How do you see the next 20 going?”
Pretty much like the last 10 — progressive disintegration of civil society coupled with a continuing political trend toward totalitarianism.
@139 Thank you for your concern trolling. In fact, when people have proposed to run for office locally I have given them considerable advice about how to advance.
typo – Ludwig “von” – not the “a” of Beethoven –
darn you IPR for keeping my typo’s in perpetuity! (and not even letting me delete rants after I post them and realize that all I wanted was catharsis of typing and not people to actually spend time reading the garbage 😛 )
The thing that makes me bristle here is that adopting the philosophy of libertarianism is NOT equivalent to having knowledge of Austrian economics!!! What makes libertarianism such a compelling philosophy is that it is so easy to understand and it can be comprehensively explained in a few sentences. If you agree with it and actually act based on these principles – then you are libertarian. But just reading and quoting Austrian economic books does not make one libertarian in and of itself Granted – generally if someone is libertarian they will agree with the policy suggestions of the Austrian school – but there are in fact people such as myself who believe that the Austrian school is not the be all and end all of thought on economics (as I find the one absolute is that there are no absolutes).
Frankly – I know of a number of strong advocates of Austrian economics who I find pretty weak when it comes to advocating for civil and personal liberties – so these types of folks seem to me way less libertarian than those who apply basic principles of self-ownership, supremacy of individual rights, personal responsibility, and the non-initiation of force – without even knowing who Murray Rothbard or Ludwig van Mises was.
I also seriously bristle against those who limit themselves to reading or gaining information within a proscribed bubble – and who judge others by whether they have also consumed the “correct” information. To me this eventually leads to seriously stilted and often fatally flawed world views and as such I find it pretty reprehensible and certainly nothing to brag about.
But that’s just me. Anyhoo – libertarian litmus test makers have been getting me so p.o.’d lately that even though I strongly support the Libertarian Party for what it does I’m going back to my old self given label of “ultra-radical centrist” – any claims to small “l” be damned.
There’s always an inner jihad for inner peace.
@83 One could just as easily read your judgmental posts here on IPR and conclude that you lack inner peace.
@139
How about leadership by example from the bottom up?
@140 Israel
Who’s Eli?
My major effort has been in reforming he national party, so that the sorts of things you mention happen across America. I have had considerable success in that direction, one step at a time, with the folks who gave use the Carpetbaggers for Eli for the moment having been driven out of control of the party.
@135 I oppose organizing by county as irrational, and have spent the last four years as our Treasurer, membership secretary, and newsletter editor, which has been a quite adequate amount of work for one person. I also attend meetings of the Pioneer Valley Libertarian Association, the oldest libertarian group continuously extant in Massachusetts, which has been operating since 1995. The regular members other than me (as a Treasurer, I could not hold public office) either hold or run for appointed or public office.
tk, well, in 20-30 I’ll either be dead or wearing diapers. Hopefully morphine drips will be readily available then!
How do you see the next 20 going?
RC (& P),
I don’t expect a “Mad Max” scenario, at least in the United States.
My best guess is something similar to Romania circa 1989, and probably not for another 20-30 years.
To put it in Paulie’s terms, if I’m dealing rock and Johnson’s dealing weed, no, I neither hate him nor consider him a competitor. We’re doing different things, with different goals. I don’t need him, and he doesn’t need me.
@116 Actually, I get it quite well. I get it that you haven’t a clue as to why most libertarian groups are overwhelmingly, if not 100%, male – as in the case of many state ex-coms and smaller sub groups. Your assumption that sports references are so off-putting is 100% off the mark and, in-fact, wrong. Such references can actually serve to draw women in, as they make a group feel more normal and balanced than the usual scary strangeness in numerous L groups.
You have had enough time organizing in MA that by now you should have established separate local groups in every county – with many further organizing subsidiary local groups. Not only established them, but your groups should contain a strong (m/f) balance (for L groups) with married and single female members and families attending social libertarian events.
I realize as well that you haven’t been able to accomplish this and that you will blame all kinds of factors other than your own abilities. Sad. If you had social skills to match your intellectual capacity you could have done.
You’re getting his view right, I believe, as well. I was trying to counter it.
“Watch a battleground play out in the fall, not between Romney and Obama on college campuses but between Obama and Gary Johnson, the libertarian, who I think speaks to a lot of frustration of young people.” – Zogby
I don’t know if Zogby is right or not.
If he is, I venture a much larger spillover of readers for c4ss and Rational Review News Digest, Knappster, etc, in the coming months and years than if Zogby is wrong and Johnson comes in with a Bob Barr level performance.
131 p, dude, don’t you be blowin’ up my spot, dawg. I agree that getting people to be thinking more liberty is the answer is all to the good. I hope I’m getting Brother Knapp’s view even if I don’t agree with it.
132 p, I’ve indicated previously that I do think GJ’s not found his center as yet. That probably also includes how he frames and analyses rather complex, complicated issues. I’ve also indicated that I don’t buy Austrian business cycle theory anymore, although I think there’s some truth in it. How much truth…I can’t say.
So, I agree that he needs a crisp reasoning basis for why he, for ex., wants to cut spending 43%. Leaving it at: The debt’s too damn high has a certain appeal, but I think it’d be helpful to go a bit deeper than that.
An incremental improvement is all we need right now. It’s not even that important in the grand scheme of reaching the larger public – he’s libertarian enough for that – but it would help reach the Ron Paul supporters who will be looking to decide who to support after the Republican convention. I would say yes, that part is part of Johnson’s job in the next few months, otherwise I would say he should spend all his waking time practicing debate and interview answers, making speeches, calling supporters, doing media, etc. Given that this is a niche audience that he has a good shot at, but is nowhere near guaranteed, I would say investing a few hours in some light reading would be time well spent.
I’m all for statelessness myself. But even in a Mad Max scenario, a better world would only emerge when enough people have considered our ideas. And the more people are drawn into an organized movement of namby pamby rollbackism, the more will eventually find themselves in contact with the individuals and ideas that could lead them to understand statelessness as potentially something other than chaos.
If I am on the corner selling rocks, I am not hating the weed dealer on the next block, because some of the 6th graders buying eighths from him now will be the 7th graders buying rocks from me next year. What’s good for his business is also good for mine.
RC @129,
I agree that Johnson is not going to turn into an Austrian scholar overnight, but that’s not what I’m talking about. For now, he just needs to gain a passing familiarity with some of the basic concepts. For example, Judge Napolitano never struck me as any kind of an expert on economic matters, but he understands enough to carry on an intelligent discussion without embarrassing himself. That’s all I’m asking of Johnson.
He could do that by reading some of the short works suggested above, such as What Has Government Done To Our Money?, or even just by reading transcripts of some of Ron Paul’s speeches. Surely even a Presidential candidate in the middle of a campaign could spare a couple of hours to educate himself, especially when the alternative is potentially making a fool of himself on national TV.
Making this “improvement” happen ain’t gonna happen during the campaign. Dude’s knee deep in it, and he’s gotta keep his channels and time clear for the job at hand.
langa said: “While I myself engaged in a bit of that speculation, my primary point has been that regardless of Wenzel’s motives, we should be thanking him rather than attacking him, since he did us a favor, by demonstrating an area in which our candidate is in serious need of improvement.
Rather than criticizing Wenzel, we should be figuring out a way to make that improvement happen.”
I agree. The only bad thing is that this didn’t happen before Gary Johnson received the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination.
126 l, ya know, I think you’re correct in many ways here. In some ways, I lost the energy to play in the Rockwell House of Mirrors, where the only “real” Ls are Rothbardians. In some ways, my personal reaction to Wentzel’s presentation carries forward the condescending contempt we non-plumb liners get from the Rockwell crowd. Wentzel used the term “hard core” repeatedly in the interview, and that carries with it some baggage for me.
As the most radical L on earth, I bristle a bit when I get lectured at by a Rothbardian.
It could be that other non-plumbliners of other sub-schools of L-ism have similar experiences.
Perhaps we’re reading a different thread here, Langa, since most here acknowledge that GJ did not do a good job here at all.
Yes, they briefly acknowledged it, but it was quickly swept under the rug in favor of seemingly endless speculation about Wenzel’s motivations for conducting the interview in the way that he did.
While I myself engaged in a bit of that speculation, my primary point has been that regardless of Wenzel’s motives, we should be thanking him rather than attacking him, since he did us a favor, by demonstrating an area in which our candidate is in serious need of improvement.
Rather than criticizing Wenzel, we should be figuring out a way to make that improvement happen. But whenever anyone has done this, they have been met with the charge that they are wasting the candidate’s time, since apparently candidates aren’t allowed to read books. They have more important things to do.
I would even go so far as to say that some people appear to believe that Johnson should proudly wear his ignorance like a badge of honor.
122 ah, if I understand Brother Knapp’s view, I think he’s envisioning something more like Mad Max than the Soviet Union’s dissolution. When the survivors come back out of the holes, only a VERY bright line message (in his case, statelessness) will suffice. Namby pamby state rollbackism will ring hollow when the few remaining are picking over carcasses and pulling edible plants.
And to pick up Steven’s last point AND introduce a semi-sports analogy, don’t talk about how must stronger our offense should be while we are playing defense.
The idiocy of this discussion to me is that we’re facing a regime where regardless of which major party candidate wins we’re still facing the continuation and likely increase of legislation eroding some of our longest held and most precious civil liberties. We can either choose to help to push a decent voice with a message to end these intrusions that actually has a chance to get this message out in a much broader way than each of as individuals would otherwise be able to do – or we can work to undermine this simply because we don’t think the messenger has studied the “correct” economics books.
With friends like this who needs enemies??
The though infrastructure for a stateless society develops faster among people who are already leaning in that direction. It doesn’t grow nearly as far or as fast among those who are further removed.
If you want a voluntaryist or peaceful anarchist society, you’ll have to go through libertarian minarchy first. The collapse of the state from its own weight, absent a major change in public opinion which would also make real steps to minarchist government short term plausible, does not lead to that – it leads to a period of chaos followed by the consolidation of power in new monopoly governments, maybe more localized, maybe not, and quite likely more tyrannical.
Revolutions generally happen not when things are at their worst, but when change is already happening in the direction the revolutionaries want, but not fast enough for their taste.
So yeah, minarchists and anarchists should be on the same team.
Many people will be spurred on a journey that ends in anarchism, or Austrian economics, or other aspects of the movement directly as a result of Johnson’s campaign. So, Wenzel and Knapp should both be rooting for Johnson to do as well as possible for their own goals, not just for his.
That he is not their kind of libertarian should not matter as much as the fact that he gets people into their general sphere or influence. Some of those people will even end up on what they consider their team.
Meanwhile tyranny grows. Will we all be on the same team when we are on the cattle cars, or still different teams?
107 ct, my understanding is that TK anticipates a collapse of the economic system. He’s preparing the thought infrastructure for a stateless society.
It makes perfect sense that he’s uninterested and possibly even hostile to rhetorical liberty incrementalism, given the calamity that he predicts…as I understand it.
Wentzel sets it up from the beginning as an interrogation to determine just how L GJ is. This is a sanctimonious stance.
Perhaps we’re reading a different thread here, Langa, since most here acknowledge that GJ did not do a good job here at all.
CT@107.
“[Cohesion for rolling back any part of government is] a necessary first step to get to where you want to go …”
At this point, I honestly can’t say whether it’s that you have no idea of where I want to go, or that you have no idea of how one gets there, or both.
But no, I have no need whatsoever for “cohesion for rolling back any part of government,” either as a first step or any other step. I need “cohesion for rolling back any part of government” like a fish needs a bicycle.
In psychology, it’s called a “reaction formation.” It’s an extreme defense mechanism – often obviously false – but the defensive person uses such tactics attempting to deflect and defend an obviously unjustified position.
The only deflections I see in this thread are the attempts to deflect attention away from Johnson’s humiliating performance by blaming it on Wenzel; you know, the old “shoot the messenger” routine.
Do you really believe that Wenzel’s only goal was to show people how smart he is? If so, why didn’t he delve much deeper into Austrian theory, rather than just giving a quick summary of ABCT (which he, like anyone else, could just be parroting from Ron Paul, who has given the same quick explanation in numerous TV appearances)? If his only goal was to humiliate Johnson, just for the hell of it, why didn’t he grill him about more complicated topics, like praxeology, time preference, etc.?
Does asking the Libertarian Party’s Presidential candidate to name a few libertarian influences, and a couple of books that he has read by libertarian authors really qualify as going for the jugular? If so, I think that says far more about the current state of the LP and its Presidential candidate than it does about Wenzel.
@109 You really don’t get it.
113 l: simply because Johnson and Wenzel both claim to be libertarians, Wenzel is somehow obligated to heap praise upon Johnson
me: This reminds me of the sort of “logic” one often hears from followers of Rothbard. In psychology, it’s called a “reaction formation.” It’s an extreme defense mechanism – often obviously false – but the defensive person uses such tactics attempting to deflect and defend an obviously unjustified position.
No one expects anything of the kind from Wentzel. Nor is anyone saying Wentzel’s a “traitor.” “Treason” is what Rothbard called Reason Magazine.
Ad Hoc has it scoped. I’d add showboating, and one-upping GJ for non-obvious purposes.
No, that would be taking things too far in the other direction. Tough questions and constuctive criticism is one thing; outright hostility and an attempt for the jugular is something far different.
I generally have no problem with sports analogies (being a huge sports fan myself). However, they’re really silly when applied to politics. In sports, all the players agree to abide by a known set of rules before the game even starts. In politics, on the other hand, the “game” consists of little more than debating what the rules should be.
A better analogy in this case would be to imagine Johnson as a movie producer, who is trying to get Wenzel (and his audience) to invest in his new movie. Wenzel responds by saying, “Well, Gary, I like the basic idea behind the movie, but there are some problems with it, and as it stands, I wouldn’t feel comfortable investing in it. If you want me to get on board, you’re going to need to make some major revisions to the script.”
Of course, Johnson is free to make the script revisions, or to ignore Wenzel and proceed without his support. This process of negotiation strikes me as not only reasonable, but in fact helpful, as it subjects the “movie” to the demands of the market (in this case, the marketplace of ideas). It certainly does not strike me as “showboating”, “scoring an own goal”, or any other such nonsense.
Unfortunately, many people here seem to believe that simply because Johnson and Wenzel both claim to be libertarians, Wenzel is somehow obligated to heap praise upon Johnson, and basically give him a 30-minute blowjob, and that any failure to fulfill this “obligation” constitutes treason, and makes Wenzel a traitor to the liberty movement.
@105
Sounds like the only part of the game you care about is right around the opposing team’s endzone, when you are barely out of your own. No wonder you can never get across mid field.
@70
I am not aware of any of those things you spoke of. I was not involve with those aspects of the campaign. Sorry I can’t be of more help.
@106 Actually, you have it backwards on women. Women are attracted to and marry sports-obsessed, beer-swilling, manly men on a regular basis. But, one common fault in the LP is the large number of male nerds who suffer from a poverty of social skills and poverty in the possession and generosity of financial means, making them repellant to women. They bring no women along with them and repel the ones that do attend Libertarian events.
The ability to be a team player is essential to political, business and social success and the ability to use and appreciate related analogies from the world of sports indicates the possession of some of the skill sets needed for political, business and social success – and the ability to attract women.
However, in the interest in supporting your claims of superior prowess in female attraction to our cause, I’m sure that the next Libertarian convention we will see George Phillies followed by a phalanx of fresh female fledglings to the cause of Liberty.
Their case is not helped by my observation that people who use analogies like this tend to repel women from the movement, which is a definite downer.
Women I know use them quite a bit. What’s wrong with athletic analogies?
TLK: FACT: Johnson supports the “Fair” Tax and has so far made it a major component of his public platform.
CT: Major? Two major network appearances last night and didn’t hear one mention. Go over his blog and twitter feed since January; what percentage is about this stupid tax plan? Miniscule.
TLK: FACT: The “Fair” Tax would increase the amount I pay to the federal government in taxes.
CT: He wants to have the feds spend 43% less (as a start).
TK: FACT: The “Fair” Tax would put me on a welfare program that would probably more than make up the difference in tax payments.
CT: OK.
TK: Some additional facts:
– I’m not interested in paying more in taxes, nor am I interested in collecting a welfare check.
CT: Me neither but that is besides the point.
TK: – While I’m not especially worried about Johnson, because I don’t think he’ll ever be in a position to implement his platform or even to make any substantial impact in favor of public sentiment for adoption of that platform as policy, neither do I make the mistake of believing that he and I are on “the same team.”
That is NOT to say he’s “not a libertarian.” He’s certainly a big-L partisan Libertarian, and much of his platform certainly falls within any reasonably big-tent definition of “libertarian.”
CT: To me those two paragraphs contradict each other, and it is interesting that you spent all that time harping on one previously acknowledged minor problem before finally getting to one paragraph that completely makes my whole point.
TK: Nor do I think that the distinctions Wenzel draws are valid in terms of who is more or less “hardcore” based on how close they are to some Austrian economics / Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist [sic] “plumb line.” “Hardcoreness,” it seems to me, is a function of enthusiasm/dedication to something, not a function of whether or not that thing is “correct.”
CT: Right again! If you took just those two paragraphs from your post and cut out the rest you would be making a good play/assist.
TK: I’m not especially worried about “cohesion for rolling back any part of government.” That’s neither necessary nor sufficient for the achievement of my goals. If it’s necessary for the achievement of Johnson’s, well, I guess it sucks to be him.
CT: It’s a necessary first step to get to where you want to go, and IMO once the momentum is in our direction it will only gather steam. But first we need to get things moving the right way at all.
@93 As a general rule, I simply do not believe people who invoke athletic analogies. Their case is not helped by my observation that people who use analogies like this tend to repel women from the movement, which is a definite downer.
CT@102,
You call it over-dramatizing. I call it a factual statement.
FACT: Johnson supports the “Fair” Tax and has so far made it a major component of his public platform.
FACT: The “Fair” Tax would increase the amount I pay to the federal government in taxes.
FACT: The “Fair” Tax would put me on a welfare program that would probably more than make up the difference in tax payments.
Some additional facts:
– I’m not interested in paying more in taxes, nor am I interested in collecting a welfare check.
– While I’m not especially worried about Johnson, because I don’t think he’ll ever be in a position to implement his platform or even to make any substantial impact in favor of public sentiment for adoption of that platform as policy, neither do I make the mistake of believing that he and I are on “the same team.”
That is NOT to say he’s “not a libertarian.” He’s certainly a big-L partisan Libertarian, and much of his platform certainly falls within any reasonably big-tent definition of “libertarian.”
Nor do I think that the distinctions Wenzel draws are valid in terms of who is more or less “hardcore” based on how close they are to some Austrian economics / Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist [sic] “plumb line.” “Hardcoreness,” it seems to me, is a function of enthusiasm/dedication to something, not a function of whether or not that thing is “correct.”
I’m not especially worried about “cohesion for rolling back any part of government.” That’s neither necessary nor sufficient for the achievement of my goals. If it’s necessary for the achievement of Johnson’s, well, I guess it sucks to be him.
I can’t speak for Wenzel, but Johnson is certainly not on the same team as I am.
In fact, he is my avowed opponent — he wants to raise my taxes AND put me on welfare!
Yes, the welfare check would probably more than offset the increased tax payments, and would have other specific benefits to me personally, but that’s not especially relevant — I don’t want what he’s pledged to impose on me if given the opportunity.
He’s not your avowed opponent on that one.
What he is with that is a quarterback dropping too deep in the pocket and setting himself up for a sack.
Overall, he wants less government meddling at home and abroad, economically and socially. He wants the ball to go in the same direction we do. He thinks this plan will help solve the red tape of the current tax system and he hopes to take advantage of its institutional support, such as it is.
The fact that I disagree with him on this and a few other things does not make him the other team, you have to take a look at the totality of his positions and emphases.
Trent: “As someone who circulates in Ron Paul circles and has been in crowds of thousands while he spoke about both the Fed and the Austrian business cycle, let me assure you that he makes it work.”
Then you clearly know better than I in that way, Trent. I’m relying mostly on his media appearances. I’m familiar with basic Austrian economic concepts and reasoning (though I don’t claim to be an expert), but my eyes glaze over sometimes when RP gets too far into it. I’ve heard the same from many other people.
Far better that he go into that than the need to seal the border or to prevent courts from overturning same-sex marriage bans though.
Yep, let’s keep overdramatizing our differences just like that and we can make sure that absolutely no cohesion for rolling back any part of government ever comes together.
BR@93,
“Wenzel and Johnson are on the same libertarian team – like it or not.”
Fortunately, you’re not the decider on that issue — we all get to decide what teams we are or are not on.
I can’t speak for Wenzel, but Johnson is certainly not on the same team as I am.
In fact, he is my avowed opponent — he wants to raise my taxes AND put me on welfare!
Yes, the welfare check would probably more than offset the increased tax payments, and would have other specific benefits to me personally, but that’s not especially relevant — I don’t want what he’s pledged to impose on me if given the opportunity.
He doesn’t especially worry me, since he has about as much chance of getting elected president as I do of succeeding Elizabeth II as Queen of England, and about as much chance of really affecting the political situation as I do of single-handedly re-popularizing ragtime.
But “same team?” Not in this universe.
Depends on what by Rothbard. What Has Government Done To Our Money (~100 pp), yes. Man, Economy and State, not so much.
I got that. And I don’t think it, or any theory, explains everything. I think it explains a lot though.
Not everyone.
As to what candidates should do,
Generally agreed, but a big part of his challenge is getting Ron Paul supporters on board, so a couple of –short!– books may be in order. There’s at least some time for reading, even if it isn’t much; cross-country airplane flights may be an opportune time.
On general campaign tactics and strategy it would really help if Johnson or at least Ron Nielson – ideally both – spent some time reading and applying the lessons of http://www.harrybrowne.org/2000/toc.htm — both the dos and the don’ts. It took a lot of work to learn those lessons, they are laid out in a lot of detail, and the pitfalls and opportunities learned the hard way through trial and error would help maximize a subsequent campaign.
It would also be interesting to have a Johnson campaign journal like
Harry Browne’s Campaign Journal
February 2000
March 2000
April 2000
May 2000
June 2000
July 2000
August 2000
September 2000
October 1-15, 2000
October 16-31, 2000
November2000
95 p, sure, right. Physiology isn’t completely “wrong” and ABC isn’t, either. The economy is also NOT a discrete entity.
Have I given you a different impression of my views? I’m indicating that I have doubts that ABC is the final answer….
I didn’t completely collapse and die from some past behavior that by all known rules of probability, medicine, etc should have killed me. That doesn’t mean that behavior was not extremely dangerous, or that it wouldn’t have killed me if I kept going, or that it won’t hasten my death now, or that it’s OK to start back up, or that it’s OK for other people to do what I was doing because through some freakishly improbable circumstances I managed to survive, somewhat the worse for wear.
Nor does it mean that our general understanding of human physiology is completely wrong.
The problem with politics is that participation is not completely voluntary. The whole country and to a large extent the whole world is the field of play, and balls are flying in our direction with the BigGov team players charging at us full steam. Saying we are not in the game doesn’t take us out of the game, it just means we are not fighting back. Unfortunately the game is rigged, so fighting back often looks hopeless too. But we are still on the same team, not necessarily by our choice, but by that of our BigGov opposition. Acting unlike a team doesn’t make them throw the balls at us or charge at us any less hard.
91 tk, yes, that sounds about right. GJ is playing the game of American politics, circa 2012, advancing an agenda of a third, liberty maximizing way in the public square.
Wentzel is playing the Rothbardian tautology game, circa 1976, showboating as BR sez for the true believers in the tautology. I’d note that I have my doubts about the unassailable nature of Austrian business cycle theory, as the economy didn’t completely crash in the 1980 and at least so far hasn’t completely crashed. Could it be that ABC is an incomplete theory of how the economy works, that perhaps the “even rotation” happens despite government manipulation? That innovation and instantaneous communication play a far bigger role than pre-Atomic Age theorists posited?
Politics is a team sport. Wenzel and Johnson are on the same libertarian team – like it or not. Good players in team sports have to support and help out the weaker players. Likewise, many plays require assists or several players to make a defensive play or to score.
Wenzel is a showboater. He wants everyone to see that he’s the best player and become the leader and the exhalted great hero.
Instead, he failed. He attacted his own team player. Scored against his own team. He made himself look like a fool. He may be fairly good on economics, (although it sounds like, in the Austrian world, he’s a third stringer himself, so perhaps he was trying to gain some credibility and notice) … but Wenzel is not good at politics.
Showboaters are often left on the bench at gametime. Wenzel had a chance to be in the game for a few moments on his tiny podcast. He demonstrated quite well why he doesn’t deserve a place in the starting lineup, nor even on the bench waiting to play.
He obviously can’t make the cheering squad, so it’s back to his armchair for Wenzel, beer in one hand and bluster in the other – a frustrated, whiner who resents his inability to get a spot on the field.
Team players go to training camp to learn how to perform as part of a team. Libertarians need to set up such a camp so that would-be, on-the-field team members can learn the skills needed to get along with others and how to contribute to the team.
Wenzel, if he could ever get over his over-inflated view of himself, would be a prime example of an individual in need of such a training school.
RC@83,
“But, yes, if Wentzel views his team to only be Rothbardians, then at least for him, GJ’s not on his team. My evaluation is that GJ’s trying to play double A ball and maybe even triple A.”
If I’m not mistaken, AA and AAA are baseball terms, right?
It’s not that Wenzel is content to play Little League while Johnson is shooting for the minor pro leagues.
It’s that Wenzel and Johnson are playing at entirely different sports.
As someone who circulates in Ron Paul circles and has been in crowds of thousands while he spoke about both the Fed and the Austrian business cycle, let me assure you that he makes it work.
Ya OK: “But what’s the rationale behind the need to cut spending? According to many economists, government spending is good. And it stimulates the economy.”
Yes, there are many Keynesian economists (especially in academia & government). And many politicians like appointing them to prominent positions for obvious reasons. However, you don’t need to be well-versed in Austrian theory in order to succinctly state why deficit spending is bad for the economy and why slashing the federal budget is good. GJ is running for President, not Economic Theorist in Chief.
Trent: “Me neither. Not because he isn’t able, but because it would put every listener to sleep. Ron Paul makes it work, but that’s a very rare exception.”
I like & respect Ron Paul, but I don’t know how much he makes that work specifically. His call to end the Fed strikes a chord with many people, but I suspect that’s not because most of them are well-versed in libertarian philosophy or Austrian economics or because they’re inspired by his discussions of monetary policy. For many of them, the Federal Reserve probably just symbolizes the secrecy & corruption of a federal government that often benefits big, politically connected guys at the expense of medium/little, politically unconnected ones.
“I wouldn’t want him give a scholarly lecture on Austrian economic theory.”
Me neither. Not because he isn’t able, but because it would put every listener to sleep. Ron Paul makes it work, but that’s a very rare exception.
But what’s the rationale behind the need to cut spending? According to many economists, government spending is good. And it stimulates the economy.
Johnson needs to be able to rationally explain his positions. And justify why cutting spending will help in the long run .
81 sc: I know that cutting down this hero of the libertarian movement [Rothbard] is a favorite theme of yours
me: Thanks for paying attention! Although, I prefer to think that I don’t cut MNR down. He did the best he could, I’m sure. I’m interesting in seeking truth, even though I know that it’s elusive. I don’t do the hero thing, and in fact I’d suggest that hitching our wagons to heroes slows down our pursuit of truth. I might go so far as to say that heroes are poison. Be your own damn hero, I say.
NK@74,
“Everyone on this comment thread is trying to tell Gary Johnson what books he needs to read right now.”
Nope. I’m just suggesting that he shouldn’t pretend to read books he hasn’t read, especially when the guy interviewing probably HAS read them and can probably tell when he’s being BSed about what’s in them.
Ya OK, I’d support him giving a speech about the need to end deficit spending and slash the federal budget while excoriating Republicans & Democrats for their fiscal recklessness. I wouldn’t want him give a scholarly lecture on Austrian economic theory.
72 tk, for me, anyone who’s a lessarchist is on my team, so GJ, Wentzel and you are my teammates. (Ultimately, though, I view humanity as a team, but for purposes of movement for what I consider to be positive social change, the morearchists have dysfunctional ideas.)
But, yes, if Wentzel views his team to only be Rothbardians, then at least for him, GJ’s not on his team. My evaluation is that GJ’s trying to play double A ball and maybe even triple A.
I and many here happen to think that Wentzel has made a fool of himself with this interview. GJ made a mistake about a fact, but his intent was and is to advance liberty. Wentzel was playing some sort of bizarre game of gotcha that IMO goes absolutely nowhere.
72 c, no. No, I can’t. I have read his L Forums, however, and given the angry words contained therein, I conclude that he had many demons and little peace.
81 sc, true enough as far as it goes. I would assert that “you reap what you sow” is a universal truth that applies to both the inner and the outer. I prefer a more consistent approach, i.e., to advocate for outer peace with an inner peace is far more effective and attractive. It’s no surprise to me that Rothbard’s influence has been miniscule, as he sowed so much anger that he reaped little. If our message is to be “anything peaceful,” then the first place to start is within ourselves.
Silly me! 😉
Haha, so you’d allow him to give a speech about economics after this incident?
It’s better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are dumb rather than talk and remove all doubt
Robert @52 – Inner peace may make you a more enlightened and fully realized human being, but libertarianism isn’t a theory of *inner* peace.
Libertarianism is about *outer* peace, i.e. behaving in accord with the Non-Aggression Principle in one’s actions toward others.
I’ll go out on a limb here and guess that Murray Rothbard, as a student of politics, not religion or New Age self-improvement, was concerned with the political aspects of Taoism that relate to libertarianism, not the inner peace cultivation aspects.
If you want to argue that Rothbard was in some ways less well rounded than Gary Johnson — I know that cutting down this hero of the libertarian movement is a favorite theme of yours — I won’t argue the point.
He’s talked extensively about economics already.
………..because he obviously can’t speak about economics
Hey Nick Kruse/Trent Hill.
To give speeches on what specifically?
I’ve bought some literature form the Mises Institute–basically because I couldn’t find good copies from elsewhere–including the works of Nock and Mises. But yes, the Rothbard Institute would be more applicable. I find it laughably ironic that they are so petulant and angry towards minarchists–while their institution bears the name of one.
I disagree with those who’ve said that GJ should’ve have hung up early in the interview. Then it looks like he was intimidated. A candidate for President has to be able to handle a combative interviewer.
Ideally, he would’ve known who he was dealing with & prepared responses to economic questions he was likely to get. It’s not important for a candidate to be an expert in Austrian economic theory though.
Also, I’ve long said that the Mises Institute should be called the Rothbard Institute. I do think the Institute produces some good work & I’ve even bought a little of it, but it’s clear that ideologically the organization adheres closer to Rothbard than to Mises.
Nick nails it.
He doesn’t need to read Mises or Hayek (though I suggest it). Or Hazlitt (because he already gets those basic lessons). Or Rothbard–especially not Rothbard, whose ideas are so far from political reality right now that they would simply serve as a distraction for a currently-running presidential candidate.
The role of a party’s presidential nominee is to give speeches and talk to the news media, not to sit around and read books. Everyone on this comment thread is trying to tell Gary Johnson what books he needs to read right now.
@52 how do you know Rothbard didn’t have inner peace ? Are you mind reader?
RC@53,
‘And then Rothbard modeled his theory of social change after Lenin!!!”
No, he didn’t.
He modeled his theory of movement/party organization after Lenin.
There’s a difference.
That’s not to say that Rothbard’s particular modeling was wise — among other things, a good case can be made that Lenin’s organizational model was what led to the problem of party “substitutism” for the allegedly represented class, quickly escalating to totalitarianism, in the arena of social change — but he didn’t model what you’re saying he modeled.
As far as Wenzel’s faults are concerned, he certainly has some — but “scoring an own goal” isn’t one of them.
While I probably disagree with him on where the line is, and what it is composed of, that separates a “hardcore libertarian” from some other kind of libertarian or from not being a libertarian at all, it is patently obvious that he and Johnson are not on the same team (nor do I think that either he or Johnson are on the same team as I am).
All the people who are ripping Wenzel are missing the point. By exposing Johnson’s ignorance, he actually did both the LP and the Johnson campaign a favor.
Hopefully, this will serve as a wake-up call to Johnson to familiarize himself with at least the basics of economic theory, before he gets embarrassed in a situation where people are actually listening, as opposed to some internet podcast with an audience that could charitably be described as miniscule.
Perhaps more importantly, this will also hopefully serve as a wake-up call to the LP, so that in the future we nominate candidates who actually understand the positions they are advocating and the platform of the party they are representing.
So Eric did you work with the Johnson director of NH who has outstanding payments for the lease on the field office that he was promised repayment for and never received ? What about the unpaid power bills?
64 gp, yes, Wenzel may well be on a “different team” than I am, and he and his team may well THINK that he scored for HIS team, but he in fact gave up a safety for the other team, like Marshall.
@62 Wenzel is obviously an educated guy with a high IQ.
He’s also obviously an insecure jerk with little common sense or big picture perspective.
Whether you call that dumb or smart is a matter of definition.
Oh and while you are there:
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2012/06/on-being-libertarian-in-delaware.html
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2012/06/eli-lehrer-you-may-only-be-libertarian.html
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2012/06/ron-paul-supporters-in-tampa-coming.html
Of possible interest here, see
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2012/06/milton-friedman-withholding-tax-too.html
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2012/06/note-for-historically-challenged-milton.html
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2012/06/gary-johnson-and-critical-libertarians.html
Wenzel and Johnson both want government to be smaller than it is now (if Wenzel is an anarchist, zero is obviously less than what we have). They both want it to be smaller domestically as well as in its interference in world affairs, and both in economic and social policies.
Obama and Romney want government to be bigger, although they would grow different parts of government at different rates. When they compromise, as they always do, it’s usually in the direction of bigger government across the board, and invariably bigger over time.
So if Wenzel is not on the same team as Johnson, why not?
We can split hairs all day every day. Meanwhile government gets bigger at home and abroad, reaching ever deeper into our pockets and our private lives.
Are we ever going to get on the same team and fight back?
@62 He’s on a different team/. He scored *for* his team, just not for yours.
I had the chance to work for Gary in NH. He is a highly intelligent, friendly, honest, hard working man. We should be so lucky that he is the LP nominee. I think most would agree he is far better and more credible than Bob Barr! Enjoy him on the Daily show tonight!
60 Z: [Wenzel’s] so dumb he scored against his own team.
me: I wouldn’t say “dumb,” but it’s actually worse than Marshall’s own goal. Marshall at least recognized his error after he made it. Wenzel seems to be bathing in sanctimony, feeling “vindicated” that he’s “exposed” GJ as worse than L-lite. Or something.
Own-worst-enemy-ism can look awfully dysfunctional.
MF: “I have no apologies for it, but I really wish we hadn’t found it necessary and I wish there were some way of abolishing withholding now.”
me: “Necessary” is always a tricky thing, but I suspect that Friedman certainly understood the downside implications of withholding. He was a nuanced thinker, unlike MNR, who was a deep but very rigid one.
MNR made great effort in exposing the weaknesses in monetarism and Friedman, I suspect in part because Friedman was widely recognized as the leading free-market economist of his era. Was there some envy behind MNR’s attacks? Perhaps.
@58
That’s a perfect visual description of Wenzel’s interview:
Wenzel picked up a loose ball, ran with it, made a big play, everyone noticed him, but he’s so dumb he scored against his own team.
58 fkc, perfect!
I suspect true-believing Rockwellians will simply not get just how dysfunctional their approach is. They’ll just keep repeating that GJ made a mistake about Friedman, that he doesn’t know Austrian business cycle theory, that he’s NOT Ron Paul.
Hmm, maybe Berkman’s right, maybe it actually IS a cult….
If Wenzel had been a football player, with this interview he scored a touchdown. Kind of like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1UZy7SSdDI
Wenzel played “Stump the Chump.” My, doesn’t he feel superior now. Get over yourself. Fine, you’ve read and memorized the most quotes from the books. Kids in the nerd set used to brag about knowing the most lines from Monty Python in school too. You’re doing what teenage boys, hard up for respect, do, Wenzel. Get rid of the chip on your shoulder. Your attitude is what makes people perceive Libertarians are kooks. Stop looking for a purist and support the candidate we’ve got. He may not be perfect, but no candidate will ever be perfect in your mind unless you are the nominee yourself.
no understanding of the basic principles and concepts of libertarianism, nor does he understand basic economics.
Not sharing your particular understanding is not the same thing as not having any understanding. The Austrian economists do have important insights, but the Rockwellians do at times descend into quasi-cultishness (which as Gene Berkman points out doesn’t always conform to Mises’ own ideas).
Personally I’m more interested to see how Johnson handles the Daily Show than in this “own goal” interview, but hopefully Johnson is spurred to do some introductory reading on Austrian economic theory as a result – save any more in depth reading until after the election.
@43 Chuck, ever read the Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley? Covers that point well in a very engaging and interesting way.
51 tc: Hayek [wrote] a damn book, The Road to Freedom, on why it is dangerous to elect the “can do” people.
me: Huge Hayek fan myself, but I don’t recall this. Still, let’s assume it’s more or less correct. An academic (who could do…he wrote books) saying that pols should be ineffectual. OK, I get that. Who’s going to vote for someone who says: “I can’t do anything!”
GJ is effectual in UNdoing things, which is a form of doing.
Playing the victim and dreaming of clutching one’s gold and guns in some remote gulch somewhere seems counterproductive, if on some levels comforting….
51 tc: If you are not familiar with the deep theoretical meat of social theory, you can become a very dangerous politician.
me: Lenin seemed quite deep on theory, and I’d say he was QUITE dangerous as a pol.
And then Rothbard modeled his theory of social change after Lenin!!! Hmmm….
50, 51 tc, it sounds as though you assume that there is such a thing as “libertarian theory.” There are Ls who have theories, some of which agree, other of which don’t.
But, if we look at these one of these alleged L theorists, Rothbard, it’s clear to me that he doesn’t understand the work of Lao Tzu, who Rothbard himself identifies as the first L. Rothbard certainly didn’t internalize the Tao, which is all about inner peace.
By all indications, GJ DOES have inner peace, so for my money, he’s the deeper L than Rothbard.
Another from the comments section
Hayek road a damn book, The Road to Freedom, on why it is dangerous to elect the “can do” people.
They all warned about the Gary Johnson types. If you are not familiar with the deep theoretical meat of social theory, you can become a very dangerous politician. Johnson has exposed himself as a surface libertarian, who has never advanced his libertarian thinking beyond taking the Nolan quiz.
The man doesn’t even know when he is spouting off Keynesian rhetoric!
From the comments section ”
People keep acting as if Wenzel and the rest of us are being too hard on Johnson because he didn’t read this book or that book. That is completely ridiculous. It isn’t about what books he has or has not read, it is about the fact that the guy has no understanding of the basic principles and concepts of libertarianism, nor does he understand basic economics. That’s the problem. If you’re running as a libertarian, it helps that you know libertarian theory and a little economics. It also helps that you don’t name non-libertarians as your influences and don’t talk like a Keynesian when asked about the business cycle. “
Wow, that was somewhat painful to listen to at times. Johnson comes across as very shallow and frighteningly ignorant about economics. While I agree with some of the comments here that Wenzel came across as something of a bully, in fairness to him, he makes a good point at the end of the interview that it’s important for a Presidential candidate to understand and be able to articulately identify the causes and solutions of the economic problems that loom so large in this year’s election. Johnson seems shockingly inadequate in that regard.
On the bright side, I thought Johnson did a good job of maintaining his composure in a situation where many people might have gotten frustrated. Furthermore, I disagree with those who say he should have hung up. The more media attention that he gets, the more likely it is that he will face tough questions, and not merely softballs, so this gave him some good practice in a (relatively) hostile environment.
Oh, and one other good point was that Johnson sounded a bit more principled and a bit more decisive on foreign policy than he often has in the past.
Steven, have you actually read much of Simon’s work for yourself?
http://www.juliansimon.org/writings/ is a great resource, which I highly recommend.
Energy is all around — wind, water, sun, geothermal, biomass, and so on. Finding ways to make it economical depends on human innovation.
Governments prop up existing conventional and nuclear energy sources in many ways – red tape that kills upstart competition, marijuana laws that prevent hemp biomass from being used for fuel even though it is a non-psychoactive form of the plant, wars for oil, risk guarantees to nuclear plants, and so on.
We may well have already kicked petroleum dependency if not for big government.
Ok – one final thing
quoting Chuck:
“Predictions about future resources have always been found over pessimistic in hindsight (regardless of the parade of scientists and scientific evidence supporting the pessimistic view contemporaneously).” –
THIS I agree with!!! It is indeed never as bad as the pessimists say –
” I see no reason for that trend to change now.” –
lots of reports indicate that this is not correct though.
Chuck –
No doubt you are smarter than me, that’s one thing I agree with you on. And I agree technology advances. Ultimately recoverable fossil fuel reserves do not though. And cold fusion is the energy source of the future – and always will be 😛
Anyhoo – MY APOLOGIES FOR KIDNAPPING THIS THREAD TO OFF TOPIC. I WILL BUGGER OFF OF IT NOW!!
Michael –
“conventional” petroleum differentiates it from lower quality substances like tarsands, shale, and bitumen (these latter things which take additional energy in extraction refining to be usable fuel sources)
Anyway – deep water oil does indeed represent a good example of how energy supplies are yielding less energy returned on the same energy invested – you get not as many barrels of oil for every barrel of oils worth of energy you consume from a deep water field as you would get from something like Spindletop when it was first tapped or massive giant fields like Ghawar in Saudi Arabia.
Your assumptions about my lack of knowledge of physics, geology, and reserves are incorrect.
I simply don’t make the mistake of holding technology constant when in fact technology is not constant. The price mechanism and incentives drive innovation.
Predictions about future resources have always been found over pessimistic in hindsight (regardless of the parade of scientists and scientific evidence supporting the pessimistic view contemporaneously). I see no reason for that trend to change now.
Chuck –
one thing re-reading your post it seems you are getting confused on – I am NOT talking about “running out” – because as you say this will indeed never happen! Instead I am speaking of extraction rates not being able being able to be increased or even maintained annually for a field (or group of fields – or for aggregated national production – or for global production).
Every oil field ultimately peaks and then declines in its extraction rate, as the oil in place goes past the 50% point. And one critical thing to also understand about oil fields – is that you can not pump out at higher rates in many of them without risking stranding a large amount of oil in place by dispersing it to where it can never be recovered from rather than moving it towards the well bore. This is why the idea of “drill baby drill” doesn’t really work past a certain extent.
Steve what do you mean by the phrase conventional petroleum? Offshore was once considered difficult and probably not conventional.
Chuck –
We’re going to have to strongly disagree because I find you are the one without logic (or decent information here). Petroleum is a finite material that takes millions of years to create. Discovery of reserves of it peaked in the 1960’s despite tons of investment in furthering them and tons of advancement in technology. For the most part we’ve mapped what’s there and have been forced to go to sources that take much more energy to exploit (i.e. tight shale, tar sands, deep water) because we’ve picked most of the low lying fruit already.
I strongly suggest taking a look at the more recent reports issued by the IEA and EIA (who are the optimists) and reading the works of geologists who have worked long in the energy industry – i.e. Colin Campbell, Jean Laherrere, Kenneth Deffeyes – for a greater understanding of the issues surrounding fossil fuel production (and its potential substitutes) going into the future.
And in response to your final sentence – I am not a “doomsayer” because I think a decent human society can still come out of a lower energy intensive paradigm – but it will likely be way different than what we are used to now – and the transition to it could potentially be extremely difficult. Anyway – I’d say it’s truly pathetic that many economists do not understand actual basics of fossil fuel production- or even simple basics of physics and geology – or the likely future trends of our current supply sources.
See also:
http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_tabarrok_foresees_economic_growth.html
Steven Berson wrote (@37):
Nope.
This is the same terrible logic that has been used for decades, with people saying we’re going to run out of oil in 5 years. Hasn’t happened. Won’t happen.
Like I said, Julian Simon understands economics. The doomsayers (yourself included) don’t.
Chuck – my quote of 5 to 40 years refers to the rate of global extraction of conventional petroleum – which by every legitimate survey will indeed peak anywhere from 5 to 40 years from now (if it hasn’t actually happened already or even a few years ago).
I am talking about producing the same (or growing) per capita energy – which is something we are going to have extreme difficulties doing following peak of conventional oil extraction – NOT “running out of energy”.
Finally – HIGHER PRICES can NOT create energy in and of themselves!! A “price” is an abstraction created by humans over laid over geo-physical reality – where as an energy source is a geo-physical reality in and of itself.
Another point is that being well-versed in libertarian scholarship/literature/history involves a lot more than knowing economic treatises. Most of what I have read of Rothbard’s can hardly be described as economics. Jim Bovard’s writings are not economic-oriented. Even Tom Dilerenzo–a professor of economics–is best when he writes history, not economics.
I wouldn’t expect Gary Johnson to be as well-read in economics as Wenzel or Thomas Sowell. Gary Johnson’s college degree was in political science.
Ron Paul is a true anamoly. He is a medical doctor who majored in biology, but who became a scholar in economics as a side pasttime or hobby. Although economics is important to libertarianism, it is not the only essence of libertarian philosophy.
Dan,
@4 is a compilation of mostly other people’s comments (names in bold above what they said).
Would be good if you said whose comment that was in response to.
Steven Berson wrote (@29):
That contradicts your other statement.
Steven Berson wrote (@25):
In a free market we won’t run out of energy for hundreds or thousands of years — if ever. The price mechanism regulates supply. When it looks like oil is getting scarce, the price of oil will go up, which incentivizes more oil exploration and technology improvements. Your quip about 5-40 years is absurd and displays utter ignorance of economics.
Of course, as David Friedman pointed out in Future Imperfect:
Paulie @ relevant comment in #4.
Fed Chair Beardsley Ruml designed the witholding system, not Friedman.
While that’s a small point, it’s one we need to remember. Prior to the 1940s, there was hardly any witholding.
During WW2, every federal employee got a w-4 – just to do “their part” in the war effort. Then everyone else followed suit and asked, “where’s my w-4?”
And so it began.
“Wenzel comes across as a petulant ass. He pesters his guest and attempts to lecture him and make petty points. This is not the way to conduct a professional interview.
My eyes started to glaze over just a few minutes into the “interview”. It was clear from the outset that the interviewer was out to score “Bill O’Reilly” badger points. Disgusting.
PEACE
RC@5,
“In the grand scheme of things, why is it important that a LP prez candidate know that Friedman invented US income tax withholding?”
It isn’t.
However, if it had been an important show , it would have been important for Johnson to not come in pretending to know things he doesn’t know that happen to be the opposite of true, because Bob Wenzel isn’t the only interviewer who’ll happily leave the studio with your head in a bowling bag if you try to pull that shit.
Also – the current economic uncertainty and recessions we are seeing are in fact driven by a bumpy plateau in global energy source extraction rates – and the extreme attempts at government interference in the markets to get us back to growth are a response to this – not the other way around!!!
Chuck – when I say “ultimately” – I am indeed meaning a LONG time off. There ain’t getting around the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics – the same way as there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
Anyway – Simon’s already been proven wrong in numerous cases – i.e. Easter Island was a nice example of a “finite sphere” in its day that held quite a number of humans who certainly used their minds do the seemingly impossible – and you don’t notice any moai carvers there any more, do ya?
Steven Berson wrote (@25):
Simon isn’t wrong at all. He has been proven right year after year after year after year after year after year. The naysayers keep saying 5 years from now will be the year he is finally proven wrong, but it never happens.
A problem humans have NEVER had before and have NEVER solved before: how to replace an abundant, reliable, easily transportable, easily storable, and powerful energy source that is obtainable at a very high EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) ratio – with less reliable, less transportable, less storable, and less powerful one – all that yield a very low ratio of EROEI. Which is what we will have to figure out how to do in anywhere from 5 to 40 or so years.
In every point in history we always went from a low quality source of energy to a higher one – i.e. biomass/wood -> coal -> conventional oil/natural gas/hydro/nuclear.
Where as ethanol/bio-diesel/tar sands/shale/solar/wind/tides all represent lower quality energy forms again.
Helicopter Ben is doing best to reverse the effects of “Simon’s law.”
Simon’s thesis of course is ultimately wrong when working within the confines of a finite sphere. Of course you can accept this fact and still be libertarian by understanding that government run attempts to sustain the unsustainable exacerbate the situation worse and create a greater fall down the cliff – than the generally more efficient attempts at mitigation you would get in a truly free market instead.
I’ll second Roger’s recommends, especially Simon – he influenced me away from big government solutions on environmental issues – as well as Grigg and Bovard.
Simon’s thesis: that the human mind is the ultimate resource. Every human is a problem solver and humans are gradually conquering all obstacles before them. This progress can be measured by the prices of all goods and commodities. Prices of virtually every element have been going down steadily for centuries, as humans master ways to extract such elements efficiently. So long as man is free, he can conquer any obstacle.
Julian Simon’s The Ultimate Resource changed my worldview.
See comments at http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/how-libertarian-is-gary-johnson.html
TRULY GREAT LIBERTARIAN WRITERS
Will Grigg, Lew Rockwell himself and James Bovard. I also recommend the great book by Julian Simon entitled The Ultimate Resource.
Simon is not a “pure” libertarian or anarchist, but his book changed the way I view the world. I have recommended it to dozens of my friends and family, though none read it. The book changed me from having an anti-immigrant position to embracing immigration. The book changed me from Malthusian pessimism to optimism for the future of humanity.
My thinking is that there are many libertarian writers that have bolstered, supported and repeated my own ideology back to me. But it takes a truly great writer to convince a reader that the reader is wrong on a given issue. Julian Simon did that for me.
I am a Lewrockwell fan (and a contributor a handful of occoasions). I also like Wenzel’s EconomicPolicyJournal blog. But Wenzel obviously resented Gary Johnson for some reason and wanted badly to make Johnson sound foolish, stupid or feeble.
Having read a smattering (or more) of Rothbard, Rand, Friedman and Mises, let me say this:
Great libertarians do not always write great libertarian literature. It take a lifetime to become a brilliant writer in the English language, and Ayn Rand and Mises–having learned English as a second language–did not write shakespearian masterpieces. Rothbard and Friedman are much easier to read.
I tried to read the great works of Rand in my youth (Atlas Shrugged & the Fountainhead) but found their prose boring. I didn’t finish either one. Mises’ Human Action is also a difficult read.
There are great ideas in these books, but they are not easy to read. Also, these are older authors and I can’t blame any new or young libertarian for having not read them.
I stopped listening to the interview after 7:30 minutes in. My observations:
1. wenzel adds no value to furthering the libertarian cause. Tearing down libertarians who are SIGNIFICANTLY better than current candidates adds ZERO value to the libertarian cause.
2. Johnson should never have gone on this show. His handlers/advisors should have given better advice. Very poor decision.
After listening to the whole interview, my impression is that Gary Johnson did quite well.
Wenzel comes across as a petulant ass. He pesters his guest and attempts to lecture him and make petty points. This is not the way to conduct a professional interview.
Wenzel was correct – but wrong to be so snotty – that as the LP candidate for POTUS, Johnson should have read some Rothbard, Hayek, and Ayn Rand perhaps. Johnson seems to be insulated and isolated by his campaign from comments and advice that he could have obtained and learned from individuals n the LP – including some posting here at IPR for example. His overpaid and unqualified campaign manager, Nielson, has not served him well.
Johnson did flub the little known fact of Milton Friedman’s early involvement with the withholding tax, but Wenzel wrongly leaves the impression that Friedman actually created the income tax. No, he didn’t say that, but he left that impression. And Johnson was certainly correct in his general impression that Friedman opposed the high tax rates that have been reached and the overall size of the government.
Johnson is focus on outreach to the public. His job is to generate leads and prospects for the party. His general views and general, simple introduction to what a Libertarian is will generate the most interest and bring in the most new prospects.
Having become a libertarian myself by natural instinct and not by reading any of the great libertarian thinkers, it is actually refreshing that Johnson is a self-made Libertarian and didn’t have to become a libertarian by reading a parroting some one else’s thoughts.
For Gary Johnson: Some one on your campaign staff is not serving you well. They won’t tell you that I have written this, for example.
You have some great campaign advice on IPR about advertising. No one in your campaign has reached out to do anything about how to leverage your assets into major free media.
You need to read some Libertarian writers as was suggested by that ass Wenzel in the interview. True you don’t have time to read a lot of books during your campaign.
For an overall flavor, a quick read is Murray Rothbard’s: For a New Liberty.
Please read this one first.
Other’s will chime in and you’ll have scores of books which will end up taking too much time during the campaign. But pick two or three more.
It’s a shame Mises was never able to fully respond to Rothbard’s anarcho capitalist ideals.
15 gb, mos’ def’ I hear you, but “cult”? Cadre seems more accurate, which is the idea…
Austin @ 11 – I am in favor of Austrian Economics. I sell books by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and even Murray Rothbard.
I even sell books published by the Mises Institute.
But the Lew Rockwell crowd is a cult, and Murray Rothbard clearly disagreed with Ludwig von Mises on some fundamental issues, both economic and political.
Mises never defended the Soviet Union as a force for peace, as Rothbard did. A refugee from Nazi dominated Europe, Mises favored the allied side in World War II, rather than supporting the America First Committee.
Mises had clear views on immigration, which were not at all similar to those of Pat Buchanan. But when Rothbard & Rockwell were trying the Paleo coalition strategy, they promoted a restrictionist position on immigration.
Austrian economics is a real school of free market economics. The Rockwell crowd is a cult that makes reference to Austrian Economics, but cult members are quite willing to differ with Mises, and to make their differing viewpoint a litmus test of libertarianism.
Hayek is the only exception. Woods and Rockwell mention that in the interview.
11 ab, I don’t think you can credibly say that about Cato. Hayek is all over the place.
A few years back when Radicals for Capitalism came out, Brian Doherty – speaking in the FA Hayek Auditorium at Cato – suggested Freud’s notion of the “narcissism of small differences” as being a plausible explanation for the bickering.
It is true that I don’t see overt Austrian boosting coming from the Orange Line Mafia like one does emanating from Auburn….
I still say – throw questions about EROEI and creaming curves of any energy source at Austrians, proponents of the Chicago School or Keynesians and they all might scratch their heads or dismiss what you’re talking about out of hand. Where as the factors of EROEI is WAY MORE critical towards the forward prosperity of an industrial society than monetary policy ever is. Unless this knowledge is integrated into the school of economics you are subscribing into then your analyses will be painfully incomplete and your solutions potentially incorrect.
@8
Cult? Really? It’s this sort of divisiveness that continues to push libertarians apart rather than bring us together. The CATO Institute, Reason and the Chicago school rarely ever mentions the contributions the Austrian school brings, and I think its that reason that the Austrians hate on CATO and the others so much. Instead of working together on the vast majority of things they agree on, the two schools bicker over the few issues they disagree.
As I posted earlier, here is an interview between Tom Woods and Rockwell discussing this sad feud, and I highly recommend listening to it. I don’t think its one sided, and I don’t think the Rothbardians are only to blame for this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mer09FiICow
“…and fails to grasp many of the obvious concerns most libertarians have with the Federal Reserve.”
This was a disastrous interview. Wenzel’s questions were certainly appropriate — not the usual softball questions lobbed at presidential candidates. Arguably, most of Wenzel’s questions could have been handled relatively easily by most of the party’s previous presidential nominees.
Instead of mentioning Milton Friedman, Johnson should have quoted somebody like Vivien Kellems when talking about tax withholding, but then again he’s probably never heard of her.
Tom Knapp and Chuck Moulton are right. Johnson lacks even a basic understanding of the Austrian business cycle and fails to grasp many of the obvious concerns most libertarians with the Federal Reserve.
Does anybody else get the impression Johnson hasn’t actually read any books written by libertarian authors?
Robert Wentzel is part of the Rockwell/Rothbard cult. While Rothbard and Rockwell are good on many issues, they are quite dismissive of other libertarians who are not part of the cult.
Moreover, R/R cultists commonly take things ouf of context when they want to criticize some other libertarian for deviationism.
It is not clear that Mr Wenzel understands the Austrian Theory of the business cycle. There is a normal business cycle, caused by normal cycle of investment, production and consumption. The problem comes when government attempts to use monetary policy to counter the down-side of the cycle.
Central bank manipulation of the money supply is certainly responsible for the boom of the Bush years, but it is a vulgar explication of Austrian theory that would say business cycles would not exist except for monetary manipulation.
I agree with all of the above comments that make the point that Libertarian action is what counts.
All of Johnson’s vetoes impress me far more than his ability or inability to remember correctly what Milton Friedman did relative to income tax withholding. I might even think that Milton Friedman would think that his quote “I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible.” would apply pretty well to Gary Johnson.
@5 see Chuck at
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/06/june-2012-open-thread/#comment-750953
Particularly the last sentence
In the grand scheme of things, why is it important that a LP prez candidate know that Friedman invented US income tax withholding?
Indeed, the whole Austrian/Monetarist debate is something that Austrian enthusiasts may well find worthwhile to ponder, but I don’t think a L politician needs to be steeped in this nuance.
GJ is a lessarchist. He’s a credible candidate, and by all indications is an interesting, accomplished and decent human being. If anything, I like that he’s not in the weeds of economics minutiae. That stuff is largely a distraction from his role of liberty’s leading exponent.
Here are the relevant comments from the other thread:
George Phillies // Jun 3, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, some number of economic libertarians of particular flavors ? probably not, mine, but I am uninterested in watching a 30 minute video to find out ? are whining that our Presidential candidate doesn?t support some number of particular ideas about economics or the like.
You can read and watch much more than you may find worthwhile here http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=206769 or here
http://www.facebook.com/groups/2497146127/
or several other places.
Thomas L. Knapp // Jun 3, 2012 at 8:01 pm
[..]
It?s not actually a video ? it?s audio plugged into video format.
Johnson takes only a few minutes to stomp really hard on his own crank in terms of history, not necessarily economic theory.
He talks about how Milton Friedman was the big guy making the case against income tax withholding. Wenzel has to point out ? more gently than I would ? that Friedman was the guy who DESIGNED the income tax withholding system.
Haven?t listened to the whole thing yet, but it seems to go downhill from there.
Andy // Jun 3, 2012 at 10:23 pm
?Johnson takes only a few minutes to stomp really hard on his own crank in terms of history, not necessarily economic theory.
He talks about how Milton Friedman was the big guy making the case against income tax withholding.?
Uuugggggggg!
paulie // Jun 4, 2012 at 4:23 am
He talks about how Milton Friedman was the big guy making the case against income tax withholding. Wenzel has to point out ? more gently than I would ? that Friedman was the guy who DESIGNED the income tax withholding system.
I?ve read that he regretted it later, but can?t remember where. Anyone know more about that?
#
Austin Battenberg // Jun 4, 2012 at 10:52 am
I like Gary Johnson and will vote for him in the general (assuming something magical doesn?t happen and Ron Paul is not on the ballot).
Here is the link to the youtube of that interview you guys are talking about. Suffice it to say, people on the Daily Paul are critizing him for not ever reading Mises, Hazlit, or Rothbard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aTch7InkZjo
Common Tater // Jun 4, 2012 at 11:04 am
The Austrian Economics/Rockwell approach is not the only kind of libertarianism out there, and the host was pompous, condescending and IMO inappropriate.
While I applaud the Mises folks for educational activities, their bitter venom towards those with different approaches to liberty is detrimental.
The CATO/Reason people, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, the LP and Rockwell and friends all reach different people in different ways and while there are some differences between them they are relatively minor from the perspective of the general public debate at large.
They should treat each other as allies, not enemies.
Attitudes like those displayed by the host in this interview are what drive many people away from the movement and why we are not further along in advancing our agenda against those who disagree with us far more than we disagree with each other.
I do hope that Gary Johnson finds time to read at least the introductory texts from the authors Wenzel mentions, although it?s not the best use of his time in the middle of a campaign. If he runs in 2016 he will be a better candidate if he is more familiar with those arguments, even if he continues to disagree with some of them.
The end result of Johnson?s campaign will in fact be more people reading those texts; don?t knock him for having a different approach.
I halfway expected Wenzel to accuse Johnson of premature antifascism.
Last one for now: it?s especially amusing to see George Phillies, himself far from a fan of Austrian Economists and the Rockwell-Paul side of the movement, trumpet this interview.
I guess for some people, the enemy of their internal enemies is their ally.
Austin Battenberg // Jun 4, 2012 at 11:30 am
This feud between the Friedman/Mises factions have been going on for a long time. This is part of an interview where Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell discuss the fued in detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mer09FiICow
Personally, anybody who advocates freedom and liberty can be an ally, and I don?t think the venom is only limited to the Rockwell side. The Friedman, CATO, Reason side never even talks about alternatives, and I think that is what fires up the Rothbardians.
paulie // Jun 4, 2012 at 11:34 am
I don?t think the venom is only limited to the Rockwell side.
True enough. They should both knock it off.
We have real enemies and it is not each other.
Chuck Moulton // Jun 4, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Common Tater wrote (@30):
The Austrian Economics/Rockwell approach is not the only kind of libertarianism out there, and the host was pompous, condescending and IMO inappropriate.
Very true. I don?t care much that Gary Johnson hasn?t read Rothbard or that he takes a utilitarian / consequentialist approach to libertarianism rather than a natural rights approach. Nor do I agree with Wenzel that Friedman was not a libertarian.
That said, I was concerned that Johnson was not familiar with Friedman?s history proposing withholding, that he didn?t have a rudimentary understanding of Austrian business cycle theory, and that he didn?t understand the concerns with government fiat money (whether it be from the Fed or Treasury). All of those concepts should have been in the knowledge sphere of a candidate criticizing the income tax and courting Ron Paul anti-Fed activists.
paulie // Jun 4, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Chuck,
That said, I was concerned that Johnson was not familiar with Friedman?s history proposing withholding, that he didn?t have a rudimentary understanding of Austrian business cycle theory, and that he didn?t understand the concerns with government fiat money (whether it be from the Fed or Treasury). All of those concepts should have been in the knowledge sphere of a candidate criticizing the income tax and courting Ron Paul anti-Fed activists.
That?s a good point you raise.
Even though I would generally not suggest that a candidate in the middle of a campaign spend a lot of time reading theoretical books, this is pretty short, easy to read, readily available and would further his ability to talk to Ron Paul supporters intelligently in language they relate to, even if he has to explain some differences:
http://mises.org/money.asp
If anyone who talks to him is reading ? please share.
George Phillies // Jun 4, 2012 at 1:20 pm
[Common Tater], I think you may want to consider my choice of the word ?whining?. What I found amusing was not the opinions of the candidate, but instead the advocates of different economic ideas frothing at the mouth.
It may be of historical interest to ask who invented the withholding tax or the modern lottery (Casanova, I gather), but it is of more interest to ask whether the candidate is in favor of or against the tax. It might also be of some interest to some people to ask whether the candidate thinks that paper fiat money is better or worse than metal fiat money, but for most people who might consider supporting us this issue is a complete snorer.
Andy // Jun 4, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Paulie: ?That?s a good point you raise.
Even though I would generally not suggest that a candidate in the middle of a campaign spend a lot of time reading theoretical books, this is pretty short, easy to read, readily available and would further his ability to talk to Ron Paul supporters intelligently in language they relate to, even if he has to explain some difference.?
The candidate should have already done their homework before they received the nomination. If they haven?t, then perhaps they shouldn?t have gotten the nomination.
I?m not saying that a candidate has to know everything, but come on, this is pretty basic stuff that I knew years ago.
Robert Capozzi // Jun 4, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Had to stop listening. Poor staff work here. GJ should not have consented to this interview. IF he did it, he should have been briefed with ways to dismiss these sorts of narrow, theoretical questions and gotten on the message he wanted to deliver.
Steven Berson // Jun 4, 2012 at 2:01 pm
[Robert Capozzi]? yeah ? I think that the GJ campaign has been seeking every opportunity to get the message out ? including lower profile podcasts such as Wenzel?s ? and that they didn?t realize Wenzel would be completely adversarial based on the fact that it was a ?libertarian? site. Hopefully this will be a wakeup call for them to do better screening and better prep-work for interviews that are consented to.
Paulie // Jun 4, 2012 at 2:16 pm
The candidate should have already done their homework before they received the nomination. If they haven?t, then perhaps they shouldn?t have gotten the nomination.
I?m not saying that a candidate has to know everything, but come on, this is pretty basic stuff that I knew years ago.
It?s not his homework and different people have different knowledge bases.
Andy // Jun 4, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Chuck Moulton said: ?That said, I was concerned that Johnson was not familiar with Friedman?s history proposing withholding, that he didn?t have a rudimentary understanding of Austrian business cycle theory, and that he didn?t understand the concerns with government fiat money (whether it be from the Fed or Treasury). All of those concepts should have been in the knowledge sphere of a candidate criticizing the income tax and courting Ron Paul anti-Fed activists.?
There were clues pointing to this before Gary Johnson got the nomination, such as that Gary Johnson never bothered to address the open letter that you sent his campaign over your concerns about Johnson?s support of the Fair Tax, yet you voted for him anyway, Chuck.
Paulie said: ?It?s not his homework and different people have different knowledge bases.?
Gary Johnson is representing the Libertarian Party as the Libertarian Party?s candidate for President, so yes, this IS a part of his homework.
Again, I?m not saying that a candidate has to know everything. They should however be familiar with the basics of the Libertarian Party and movement, and be familiar with its history.
paulie // Jun 4, 2012 at 3:23 pm
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/06/gary-johnson-on-robert-wenzel-show/
Other IPR writers please feel free to edit to provide more context within [this] post itself (I?m overextended as usual) but if you do, please do not make it too hostile towards either the guest or the host.
I think that’s it to this point.
Wenzel sounds like a real douchebag here. He’s badgering. Johnson should’ve hung up a couple minutes in, as Mike Kane said above.
With that said, it’s always been clear Johnson is not the academic/philosophical libertarian. He is the practical libertarian. Having read Rothbard and Hazlitt doesn’t make you a libertarian.
repost of what I said on the open thread:
Wenzel is obviously just trying to just run an adversarial litmus purity test. These types of things being done by Wenzel here push the vast majority of people away from libertarianism – not towards it.
To me it seems Wenzel doesn’t understand that libertarianism is in fact way more about understanding and agreeing to a few very easy to grasp principles – self-ownership, the supremacy of individual rights, personal responsibility, the non-initiation of force – than how many books on Austrian economics you read.
For myself Wenzel puts on a truly asinine air of steak swinging on the fact that he’s the biggest geek in the house – when to me it seems he just only reads within a bubble – seems to me a dose of Chris Martenson, Kenneth Deffeyes, Colin Campbell, Matt Simmons, Albert Bartlett, Dmitry Orlov, and Richard Heinberg might be in order to expand his perspective. Wenzel in blaming business cycles solely on currency and monetary policy manipulations by central authorities, points out clearly where the Austrians (along with the Keynesians) are missing the boat to me, in believing that man made abstractions (such as monetary policy) are in fact the initial factor responsible for ups and downs in economic activity – when it is in fact variations in present geo-physical realities, along with human’s rational and emotional reactions and proclivities to these geo-physical realities – that are in fact the initial causing factors – with attempts at manipulations of the abstractions we place above these geo-physical realities are often the initial response. But Wenzel (and way too many libertarians as well as spend-atarians) seem completely blind to this fact.
Anyway – GJ might not be “book smart” but I’d say he has infinitely more business instincts and street smarts than Wenzel does – with actual pragmatic experience creating and running a multi-million dollar business with a 1000 employees from scratch, as well as governing a State from 8 years and taking it from a budget deficit to a surplus. Obviously you don’t need to have read the “right” articles from Mises in order to do this!
Looking on the bright side of this – I’d say interviews with putzes like Wenzel are actually good for GJ to go through now as it will toughen him up for higher profile ones in the near future – i.e. someone like Bill O’Reilly or Thom Hartman would be equally scathing and adversarial – but GJ would likely not be as surprised to encounter that as I think he likely was in this case. I’d say actually GJ acquitted himself really well by remaining calm, non-plussed, continuing to give decent answers in topics he was more comfortable in when he was not being lectured at by Wenzel.
I have quite a few thoughts about this interview, but here’s the short
1. Gary Johnson should have ended the interview minutes in.
2. The interviewer didn’t accomplish much, other than making Johnson look awful. If this interview was done months before the convention I think it would have been a great listen. After the convention though, it made me cringe. The interviewer didn’t do much to promote libertarianism though, in fact I think his attitude and questioning was counterproductive.
3. Read the comments – many people there discuss how having a truly “Radical” candidate/message is what they respect about the LP, NOT a watered down version.
4. Gary Johnson is still our presidential nominee, and while he’s not perfect, he’s still better than anyone else.