Bill Maher interviews Gary Johnson

Updated: On July 1st, 2016, Bill Maher, host of Real Time on HBO, interviewed Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson. From the Asian Guy YouTube channel (video length: 7 & 1/2 minutes):

A brief description was provided a different YouTube channel that has since deleted their version of the video:

Real Time host Bill Maher had fun at Gary Johnson’s expense on Friday when the Libertarian presidential nominee tried to present his party’s views as hewing closer to the mainstream than Donald Trump’s. “When he started talking about going after 11 million undocumented workers, that’s just crazy,” Johnson said. “Not just Libertarians feel that way,” Maher replied. “All sane people feel that way.” “I think so,” Johnson said in agreement. “I think most sane people are Libertarian — it’s just that they don’t know it.” “Unfortunately, a lot of people who are not sane are Libertarian,” Maher shot back. “I saw your convention. The vision of government is somewhere between colonial Williamsburg and Atlantis. Their economic theory is like Mad Max takes your gas and you die.” Johnson recalled getting booed at his party’s national convention when he spoke out in favor of drivers’ licenses, but added, “I don’t think crazy is unique to the Libertarian Party.”

Gary Johnson is due to appear on CNN’s State of the Union with Jake Tapper tomorrow at 9 AM Eastern Time.

(Via American Third Party Report)

26 thoughts on “Bill Maher interviews Gary Johnson

  1. Matt Cholko

    That was a fine piece in terms of Johnson looking good to the general public. I just wish he was selling them something worthwhile.

  2. robert capozzi

    A.

    He seems more at ease. Answers crisper. His charm is coming on…authentic smiles.

  3. William Saturn

    If you think he did a good job or was in any way likable, then perhaps you should watch the overtime segment and see if you still feel that way

  4. steve m

    I did watch the over time section and wish he had stuck to his guns about Tesla and solar power and consumer demand for these products and innovating our way out of the mess we are in.

    Because, he was dead on correct and just needed to be more forceful about it

  5. steve m

    First, Coal isn’t dead. The US produced 1.4 million tons in 2008 and this only dropped to a little over 1.2 million tons in 2014. Mean while natural gas production increased 1.7 billion cubic feet to 2.4 billion cubic feet. Fracking for natural gas is what is taking the market away from coal.

    But, US consumers are shifting to wanting cleaner power. Tesla has received nearly 400,000 reservations for an electric car they don’t even make yet. VW has announced that they expect to be shipping upwards of 3 million electric cars every year within about 7 years. Solarcity has installed more then 250,000 houses with solar cells.

    That is what is killing coal.

  6. robert capozzi

    If I had the gwap, I’d get a Tesla, but it’s not because of the lessened carbon footprint. It’s because they are cool rides. GJ overstates here, methinks.

    Spewing pollution into the commons (the air) is not something the market handles very well. How pollution is regulated is the issue at hand, and I’d like to see him come up with a better answer.

  7. steve m

    400,000 electric cars will displace oil burning cars and reduce co2 emission by about 800,000 tons a year.

    400,000 * 10 gallons * 50 weeks * 8lbs/gallon * 1 ton/ 2000lbs = 800,000 tons a year.

    Half of these cars are shipped out side the US where the US government doesn’t subsidize them. And the US subsidies go away a year after the first 200,000 are sold in the US.

    The subsidies of dumping CO2 into the atmosphere never goes away unless it starts getting taxed. Anyone in favor of carbon emission tax? No, then hydrocarbon based cars will continue to be subsidized since they don’t pay the full cost of their usage.

  8. steve m

    You mean 7 years in the future, the owners of 3 coal burning power plants decided to shut one unit down rather then pay to install equipment which would reduce their dumping of Nitrogen Oxide into the atmosphere and which creates ground layer ozone. Ozone of course being a rather harsh molecule that rips other molecules apart and is particularly un-healthy for living things such as people.

    My point would be that dumping such substances into our common atmosphere is a subsidy to their production of energy. Why should they not pay the full costs of their activities? If the value of the energy produced was greater then the costs of production then they would have installed the equipment or made some other arrangement. They had that option as well.

    The point being that for energy producers it is cheaper to build cleaner power plants that burn natural gas then it is to attempt to clean up dirty coal power plant emissions.

    Should the producers of a product be allowed free use of a shared resource even if they are killing people doing so?

    What say you Thane Eichenauer?

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/switch-to-natural-gas-slashes-power-plant-pollution/

  9. Thane Eichenauer

    Steve M,
    You make what sounds like a persuasive case. I haven’t read about the creation of Nitrogen Oxide and its resultant creation of ground level ozone. The power plants in question are located rather remotely. Maybe that makes no difference maybe not. I am unable to rebut your case. I thank you very much for the information.

  10. T Rex

    Even if no EPA existed, coal companies could still be put through ruinous lawsuits in a libertarian society, having a similar effect.

  11. Thomas Knapp

    I have a strong preference for freedom (and the tort liability that goes with it) regardless of consequence, but I do have to wonder if, how, to what extent and at what speed we would have arrived at a modern technological society absent an industrialization phase that entailed factories belching out nasty smoke and smog for quite some time before coming up with ways to make stuff without doing that.

  12. steve m

    Tom,

    I don’t think society could go from medieval technology to clean advanced tech without passing through a dirty industrial phase. Here in the Pacific North West, from Tacoma to North of Seattle we are left with top soil contaminated with arsenic, lead and other heavy metals from an Tacoma copper smelter that ran from 1889 to the mid 1970’s. The good news is we are on the tipping point of having the clean technology and if we can just build it and deploy it, world wide we may start to have a cleaner healthier world that we can all enjoy.

    To put the amount of oil we burn each day, some 92 million gallons , into human perspectives. Compare it to Niagara Falls which does about 6 million gallons of water a day, which is about 15 Niagara falls.

  13. Thomas Knapp

    Steve M,

    “I don’t think society could go from medieval technology to clean advanced tech without passing through a dirty industrial phase.”

    I guess it’s a good thing we got that out of the way before developing pesky libertarian theory, then 🙂

  14. robert capozzi

    tr: coal companies could still be put through ruinous lawsuits in a libertarian society, having a similar effect.

    me: Well, maybe. Since we don’t have one, and we don’t have a discovery process and possibly no aggrieved party with the appropriate standing, color me skeptical.

    Your faith, however, is impressive.

  15. steve m

    I am not sure that pesky libertarian theory would have mattered. We were fairly ignorant of the environmental effects of the industrializing world. How do you bring a devastating lawsuit if you know you are being harmed? Or if you are of the statist leaning philosophy how do you argue for government regulation if you don’t realize the damage being done? So the smaller human population, the seeming unlimited ability of the planet to handle the pollution we were dumping and our ignorance might have eventually worked out to our benefit. But there is a bunch of crap that needs to be cleaned up.

    I am wondering if some developer won’t at some time go into Flint Michigan and buy up blocks of homes cheaply, rebuild the water system and sell them homes for a nice profit.

  16. dL

    Tom:

    If only we had a state during that time to enforce internalization of the costs. ?

    #peskyStatePractice

  17. Tony From Long Island

    This was probably Gov. Johnson’s best media appearance so far. He was clear and concise for the most part. He only said “Well, I’m running for President of the United States” once, thankfully.

    Hopefully he’s getting more comfortable.

  18. Thomas Knapp

    dL,

    Precisely the conundrum I had in mind.

    There’s a guy over at the UK’s Libertarian Alliance site who comes unhinged on Kevin Carson every so often when Carson points out some of the bad shit that happened to shape history toward where it is now — the Enclosure Acts and so forth.

    On the one hand, he gets deterministic and insists that what happened had to happen (e.g. large numbers of commoners moving off the land, into towns and onto factory floors), and that if it hadn’t happened the way it happened (eviction by the toffs pursuant to enclosure), it would have happened some other way (see Step 2 of the Underpants Gnomes Business Model). So it’s all good.

    But then he gets all weep and hurt because if he was wrong about the first part, that means a libertarian historical progression wouldn’t have culminated in the iPad. Why, oh why, won’t mean old Kevin Carson let him have his iPad? Wailing! Gnashing of teeth!

Leave a Reply

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