by Josh Guckert, The Libertarian Republic, August 24th, 2016 (via Cody Quirk at ATPR):
Darrell Castle is Not a Serious or Legitimate Choice for President
Some libertarians, upset with the nomination of Gary Johnson, as well as the choices of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, have begun pondering the possibility of voting for Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle. He is scheduled to be on enough ballots (when including write-in eligible states) to theoretically win the election. However, deeper inspection into his record indicates a very frightening candidacy. While he is good on many issues which libertarians hold dear, on others, he and his party are as bad or worse than the Republicans and Democrats. These are the top ten reasons not to vote for the Constitution Party and Darrell Castle.
1. Immigration
Do you think Donald Trump is too lenient on immigration? Perhaps in that case, Castle might be the answer. However, for libertarians who generally favor a simpler path for potential workers, Castle’s policies seem absurd at best and draconian at worst.
According to ISideWith, using answers Castle himself supplied, he agrees with literally every Trump point on immigration. However, he goes even further,supporting a blanket ban on ALL immigration until the “border is secured.” Castle provides no definition for when the border would be deemed “secure” enough to again allow immigration. He bluntly ignores the failures of the current bureaucratic system, asserting that “There is a current pathway to citizenship: it is called ‘legal immigration.’”…
To read the full article, click here.
I still think I’m gonna vote for Castle.
George Dance: So Root’s Teeth, are you are saying it is ok for the state to murder an innocent man?
Can’t you read? I already answered that specific question.
Root’s Teeth: “Are you saying there are no crimes worthy of capital punishment?”
As I’ve said before I don’t consider death a punishment. Instead of killing someone and calling it punishment, lock them up for the rest of their natural lives.
If in your zeal to punish the guilty, you kill an innocent man, you’ll have become as big a monster as the guilty you are trying to punish.
So Root’s Teeth, are you are saying it is ok for the state to murder an innocent man?
LibertyDave (to teeth): “Also from the University of Washington Women’s health website:
“Most women have abortions in the first trimester (the first 3 months of pregnancy). A few abortions occur in the second trimester (4 to 6 months of pregnancy). Third trimester abortions are done only for life-threatening reasons.”
So how did you come up with the statement; “And most women who abort, do not abort zygotes”
Well, technically, of the roughly 90% in the first 3 months, only a third are zygotes, and the rest embryos (with roughly 10% being fetuses).
Of course, if we’re going to get that technical, none of them are “babies” (the term Mr. Teeth was originally using for all of them).
Well, from the 5th to 12th week it’s an embryo. Beyond the 12th week, it’s a fetus.
are you are saying it is ok for the state to murder an innocent man?
Loaded question. It’s not okay for the state — or for the free marketplace of individuals — to kill an innocent man. But capital punishment is intended for the guilty.
Are you saying there are no crimes worthy of capital punishment?
Or do you support capital punishment, provided that it’s carried out by some anarcho-fantasy group under some other name (e.g., an Agorist Cadre, or Voluntaryist Rights Enforcer, or Anarcho-[Fill In the Colorful Ideological Term of Your Choice] Committee)?
Any society that recognizes rights requires non-voluntary enforcement of those rights. (The guilty will never volunteer to be punished.) And the people who enforce rights against the wishes of the guilty are a state, even if they call themselves an Anarcho-Whatever. And all people are fallible.
=========
Most women have abortions in the first trimester (the first 3 months of pregnancy). … So how did you come up with the statement; “And most women who abort, do not abort zygotes”
A zygote becomes an embryo by the 5th week (i.e., a little over one month): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo So any abortion beyond the 5th week is of an embryo, not a zygote.
So Root’s Teeth, are you are saying it is ok for the state to murder an innocent man?
Also from the University of Washington Women’s health website:
“Most women have abortions in the first trimester (the first 3 months of pregnancy). A few abortions occur in the second trimester (4 to 6 months of pregnancy). Third trimester abortions are done only for life-threatening reasons.”
So how did you come up with the statement; “And most women who abort, do not abort zygotes”
George Dance: there’s a fundamental difference between wrongfully executing a person, and a woman flushing a zygote out of her womb.
Except that most men (almost always men) who are executed are indeed guilty of the charged crime. And most women who abort, do not abort zygotes.
Teeth: “Stupid talking point. Abortion and capital punishment are fundamentally different issues.”
True; there’s a fundamental difference between wrongfully executing a person, and a woman flushing a zygote out of her womb.
Senor Langa. . . we apparently agree on the Death Penalty and for mostly the same reasons. I just no longer use the NAP to analyze every issue. I now just use my own judgement.
Are my eyes deceiving me? Andy quoted me in a POSITIVE way? Wow . . . but nothing will change my highly negative opinion of him.
One other point on the Death Penalty – and I can state this from speaking to dozens and dozens of convicted murderers – The Death Penalty is NOT a deterrent
I understand your point RTAA, which is why I view those that are vehemently ‘Pro-Choice’ and yet oppose the death penalty to be utter hypocrites themselves.
LIbertyDave: How can anybody who claims to be Pro-Life support the death penalty?
Stupid talking point. Abortion and capital punishment are fundamentally different issues. Unborn babies are innocent of any crime, whereas felons sitting on death row have been convicted of very serious crimes.
Whatever one’s positions on these two issues, they are not linked.
“””The “Constitution” Party – which is based, apparently, on some other country’s Constitution.”””
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_of_Saudi_Arabia
Sorry, I commented on the wrong thread. I meant to comment on the Clint Bishop: Rebuttal to Josh Guckert’s ‘Top 10 Reasons Not to Vote for Constitution Party Candidate Darrell Castle’ thread.
Tony, the NAP that you so casually dismiss is the real reason why libertarians should oppose the death penalty. According to the NAP, the only justifiable use of force is in self-defense. The death penalty, of course, isn’t self-defense; it’s revenge, plain and simple, and therefore, it has no place in a free society.
Oh yeah . . .that NAP . . . the Bible for Libertarians . . .
As for the Death Penalty . . . . I was against it long before I was incarcerated (for non-violent offenses)
It is a waste of money . . . it condemns innocent people sometimes . . . it is inconsistent with a humane society . . . it is applied randomly and generally more toward black defendants . . . It is used to induce guilty pleas, thus denying full due process of law . . . I could go on if wasn’t so busy with work today.
I love how those who are so “pro-life” are the most vocal about using the death penalty
From a libertarian perspective, religion is basically irrelevant, one way or another. For a libertarian, the only relevant question is whether a candidate’s positions are consistent with the NAP. Their motivation for holding those positions (religious or otherwise) is completely irrelevant.
How can anybody who claims to be Pro-Life support the death penalty?
For those of you Pro-lifers who are Christian, it seems to me that in supporting the death penalty you are giving the people who you think deserves the worst punishment a free ticket to heaven. All they have to do is pray to god and ask for forgiveness just before they are put to death and they will go to heaven instead of the hell you are trying to send them to.
Consider this, if instead of killing them as soon as possible, lock them up in a cage for the rest of their natural lives and let god decide when they should die. Either way they will still face the same end punishment, death in prison.
And this way if they do convert to Christianity, it will be because they feel remorse for their deeds instead of fear of death.
As for those who don’t believe in heaven or hell, again death is not a punishment, it is something that happens to everyone. If you want to punish someone then lock them in a cage for the rest of their natural lives. Again the same end punishment, death in prison.
As for the quote above:
“I can’t argue the constitutionality of the death penalty because the Right to Life cannot be taken without due process. Obviously, if someone has been convicted and sentenced to the death penalty, then they have been afforded due process.”
This was spoken like a true believer that the courts in there infinite wisdom are incapable of making a mistake and that no innocent person has never been put to death for a crime they didn’t commit. Now for those of us that live in the real world, by not killing as soon as possible, we have some time to correct any mistakes that were made during due process. If we kill first then it is impossible to correct the mistake and everyone who supported this killing is guilty of at the least manslaughter.
I will vote against any theocratic candidate. Any discussion about religion (except maybe “what religion are you”) immediately makes me be against that candidate.
I understand politics but there is a difference between just about ANY Democrat discusses religion in the context of their political life and say . . . Ted Cruz . . . or The “Constitution” Party – which is based, apparently, on some other country’s Constitution.
Then again, I am a lifelong “devout” atheist. I don’t care how what issues I have in common with a candidate. If they stress their religion as a selling point, they NEVER get my vote.
I would have liked to read the linked article, but the Libertarian Republic has so many popups, ads, and stupid page divisions of what should have been a simple 1 page article that it is completely unreadable — especially on a phone. I guess the rest of you are willing to jump through that ridiculously complicated Rube Goldberg device to get your piece of cheese.
If Austin Petersen had been elected President we all would have to watch 14 ads and click 53 times whenever we want to drive on a government road.
Darrell Castle is more libertarian than either Johnson or Weld.
I don’t know where Weld stands, but Johnson is on board with ending the Fed and he opposed the bailouts. There are plenty of legit reasons to criticize Johnson, but they don’t include supporting Federal Reserve inflation by subsidizing government debt or support for corporate bailouts.
Attacking Castle is a really, really stupid thing to do, politically. He’s so far down that any attention at all can only bring him up and it ruins any chance of getting a “Johnson is less than ideal, but good enough” vote from Castle supporters in states where Castle isn’t on the ballot.
There’s a reason for the expression “you don’t punch down.”
Attacking Castle gains Libertarians exactly nothing.
It’s amazing the lengths some of Gary Johnson’s supporters will go to in order to degrade their minor-party opposition. Though I don’t personally share many of his political convictions, Darrell seems like a decent guy.
Unlike Gary Johnson and William Weld — an Establishment ticket if there ever was one — at least the Constitution Party candidate has the courage to attack the Wall Street-controlled Federal Reserve, the financial oligarchy’s most important tool in subjugating the vast, vast majority of the American people into a lifetime of servitude to the reigning one percent.
It’s a power struggle that has been waged between democracy and the concentration of wealth — the so-called one percent represented by private banking interests on Wall Street — throughout American history.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis stated it best when he observed, “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
The Libertarian Party’s current presidential ticket, sadly, is on the wrong side of that power struggle. They are, at the very least, apologists for the ruling elite.
When have Gary Johnson or Bill Weld ever attacked Wall Street?
Remember Quantitative Easing (QE1, QE2 and Q3)? Who did that benefit? Certainly not anybody in the working-class or middle-income tiers in the United States. The trillions of dollars in QE money dispensed by the Fed in the aftermath of the 2007-08 financial meltdown merely propped up the big banks and the investor class, enabling the wealthiest Americans not only to regain their momentary losses from the 2008 financial crisis — a crisis of Wall Street’s making — but to prosper beyond their wildest dreams. Precious little trickled down into the real economy.
It’s sad, very sad, to watch Johnson’s supporters denigrate their third-party rivals. They must be really insecure, especially since they’re backing a candidate, unlike Darrell Castle, who really has nothing to say of any consequence when it comes to the economy and those who control it.
Josh was too soft on them, especially on the religion factor because the CP has enough baggage to scare away even practical conservatives.
This article’s argument is basically:
1) The CP’s platform is bad
2) On issues where even libertarians disagree amongst each other (eg, abortion), Castle takes the conservative position
3) The TPP is good.
The only good argument it really makes is on eminent domain.
If he’s actually going to do the rebuttal from a ‘libertarian’ perspective, then he should expect several counter-rebuttals to such an article afterward.
A new ATPR contributor, Clint Bishop, will be publishing a rebuttal to this in likely a few hours.