How Libertarian Is Gary Johnson?

Miscellaneous General
41

I generally discern someone’s intentions from the person’s actions. I also realize that time is scarce and people have different preferences than ourselves. Sure, if I am correct, we’re the type of people who consume vast amount of literature for work or leisure. Other may not be so inclined. From the propaganda, it seems like that guy knows how businesses operate and realizes government expenditures of sacred cow projects is a waste of resources. Collectivism ostensibly failed everywhere it was enacted. Maybe he is even knowledgeable in some public choice theory on the side. From another thread, someone stated he was reading ‘Economics in One Lesson’. Evidence that he is curious in learning more.

Ragging on the guy because he has not read ‘Man, Economy and State’ and ‘Ethics of Liberty’, I believe is expecting too much of people. Even the ones inclined towards the classical liberal tradition or libertarianism. Perhaps if they stated that they’re a proponent of the Austrian School but have never read ‘Human Action’, ‘Man, Economy and State’, ‘Prices and Production’, ‘The Pure Theory of Capital’, etc. you would have some grounding to be critical. Better yet, be hard on Friedman. Friedman advocated central banking.

If I jumped down the throats of every single socialist/marxist/facist/interventionist because they have never read a decent economics treatis, I would dissuade them rather convince them of the merits of doing so.

In conclusion, don’t be so hard on people for it may simply repel the interested.

42

Oh well if the propaganda makes it seem that way then it must be true.

It was in this thread. Eight short posts before yours. And I saw no display of virtually any economic literacy of any real significance. In fact, Wenzel had just barely gotten into the interview when Johnson fell into what was probably one of the grossest displays of total ignorance I’ve seen in a long time.

That is not what happened and anyone who listened to the interview knows it.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Wenzel was hard on Friedman. Johnson did mention Friedman as basically his favorite economist. Johnson did credit Friedman with ending a policy which he was actually in fact a huge proponant of.

How in the world does this help the case you’re trying to make here?

I’m sorry, Johnson makes himself out to be a socialist/marxist/facist/interventionist?

I would find it hard to be convinced you read much, if any, of this thread. The whole point is Johnson makes himself out to be a libertarian, and Wenzel set out to expose him as a limp libertarian at best…and he succeeded wildly. This is not to say he couldn’t have conducted a better interview (again, this has been discussed at length in this thread), but the purpose of the interview was achieved, and I think a lot of fooled Johnson supporters were awakened to the reality.

43

hahahahaha whatever.

I can call myself anything I want, then. I’ll be a Marxist, but never read Marx (like those socialists you mention). They look just as fucking stupid and pigheaded as Gary Johnson. Why did Ron Paul not come out swinging in support of Johnson? Becasue he is a phony who cannot be trusted. Freidman: can you suggest any more dead people to criticise? I like stabbing those that cannot defend themselves…

44

I use the word propaganda to convey the negative connotations associated with it.

Ohh, really? My short term memory must be horrible.

Disclaimer: I have not listened to the interview.

I don’t believe I insinuated that. My mistake. I should be more clear in the future.

I was using an anology. At my age, 23, I run into many people on a daily basis who propagate all sorts and manners of claptrap. If I immediately called them a moron in response and told them to read a book harshly, I don’t believe they would. They would most likely think I am an ass and not take my advice.

Probably a better anology would be a person, most likely a conservative, stating that school voucher system would be a better alternative to the status-quo. Calling that person a moron or an ignoratum because the person is not well verse in literature that would inevitably conclude with stating that no government intervention or no government at all would be a better alterntive, I don’t believe it will entice someone to conduct further research.

The general point I am attempting to convey is that being harsh on people is probably not the best means.

As for Johnson, Wenzel and the general libertarian subculture, I am not well acquainted with the ongoings. I live in Australia. After reading your response, I have an inclination that my comments are out of place.

Cheerio,

Proxy

45

Disclaimer: If you are going to argue a point you must first consume the relevant backstory.

46

Wow! Ok…I must have said something really stupid and have offended you at the same time.

47

Yea

No, you just said dumb things.

48

Wha? Then how does what you said help your case?

Ya don’t say.

The how the heck is your comment relevant?

What does any of this have to do with anything in this thread?

Well that’s the understatement of the month.

49

I am curious; are you guys generally this hostile towards people?

50

Yes. We are anonymous on the internet. Why not be?

51

Do you generally offer commentary on interviews you haven’t listened to?

52

proxyamenra, you visited this thread and the first comment you posted is a quip about someone (I guess John James, as you replied to the OP) having an illness of ‘I am more libertarian than thou.’

The second comment you posted had to do with an accusation of commenters here ‘ragging’ on ‘the guy’ for not having read certain treatises which, again, equates us to some sort of community of bullies (and is a superficial understanding of what has actually been discussed above).

And now, the comment to which I am responding is, as I read it, accusing ‘[us] guys’ of being hostile ‘towards people.’

Meanwhile, this is coming from someone who admittedly has neither listened to the interview in the OP nor offered nothing relevant to the thread whatsoever.

If you’d actually like to contribute to the thread, try again (first thing to do is to regard the OP).

If you continue negatively commenting on the character of posters here, expect no kindness.

53

In the future I will not direct people to this forum for inquiries. This, of course, will have no bearing on your plight, be what ever that may be.

54

If the traffic you send here (which to my guess is nonexistent) conducts itself anything like you have in this thread, I say good riddance.

55

lollerblading

He, himself, didn’t even consume the content he was commenting on. Even if we politley told them to read or listen to the relevant material, they would still form opinions based on their own introspective conjectures.

I find humiliation to be better suited at getting people to privately read about what they disagree with. They may even change their minds, but not express it (as they do not want to be wrong). This “respect others opinions” is bullshit. People are mostly idiots and avoiding damaging their self-esteem is to enable their idiocy.

56

There’s definitely something to that. They’re certainly not going to come back and agree with you (as that would implicitly be admitting they were wrong), but they’ll definitely turn right around and go tell someone else spouting the same nonsense they did that they are wrong.

Here’s a fun anecdote that speaks to this.

57

There’s been some talk on the LRC Blog. Laurence Vance explains what’s what…

‘Libertarian’ Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson: Warmonger‏Posted by David Kramer on September 7, 2012 03:30 PM

Statement issued by Gary Johnson on the tenth anniversary of the false flag attack on the United States sheeple:

“As we all pause this weekend to remember the events of September 11, 2001, our thoughts are with those who lost their lives, those who saved so many lives, and a nation that showed its greatness in countless ways. 9/11 and the days after were a time when ordinary Americans did extraordinary things. Our thoughts and our gratitude are also with the amazing men and women of our military who are putting themselves on the line every day to keep us safe. The fight against those who would do us harm continues today, and it is a fight we must carry out with the same determination that was so magnificently displayed by the heroes of 9/11.”

[Thanks to Scott Horton]

Re: ‘Libertarian’ Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson: Warmonger‏Posted by Laurence Vance on September 7, 2012 04:28 PM

The statement by Gary Johnson that the men and women of the military are “amazing” and that they put themselves “on the line every day to keep us safe” shows once again that he doesn’t have clue what a real libertarian is. Romney, Bush, Obama, Biden, Clinton, McCain, Palin, and the rest of the warmongers have all made almost the same statement.

Two more thoughts:

I wonder if U.S. troops would still be “amazing” if they went house to house killing “suspected terrorists” in Johnson’s neighborhood?

Are the U.S. who bomb wedding parties and cut off body parts and urinate on dead bodies “amazing” too?

Don’t Criticize Gary Johnson?Posted by Laurence Vance on September 8, 2012 07:46 PM

Don’t criticize Gary Johnson I have been told by several individuals today. He is not perfect, they all say, but he is the best choice we have for president and deserves our support. I would love to see Gary Johnson elected president instead of either Obama or Romney, but I know, my critics know, and I hope Gary Johnson knows that he has a zero chance of being elected president. As to whether the LP should even run a candidate for president, that is another topic for another day. I will continue to criticize everyone who deviates from a pure libertarian standard. And Gary has many deviations. For example, he doesn’t support ending the drug war completely by legalizing all drugs. This is a serious deviation in my opinion. I hope that I am criticized and brought into line should I depart from what Walter Block calls plumb-line libertarianism. (Some libertarians think I have already departed because I don’t support abortion on demand.) More on Johnson later.

Gary Johnson—One More TimePosted by Laurence Vance on September 9, 2012 07:17 AM

I have never met Gary Johnson. Unlike Romney and Obama, whom I loathe, as all freedom-lovers do, I’m sure Johnson is a decent guy who means well that I could carry on a conversation with. A question though: If Gary Johnson wasn’t being compared with the Democrat and Republican clowns running for president, would libertarians even notice him? Sure, he favors legalizing marijuana. But so does every left-wing college student and Hollywood actor. But aside from those who just want to get stoned out of their mind, how many of these people favor legalizing all drugs? And how many favor doing so on the basis on individual liberty and personal freedom?

I Think Johnson Defenders Have It BackwardsPosted by Laurence Vance on September 9, 2012 02:19 PM

Instead of my “denigration of Johnson” only harming the cause of freedom, I think it is the other way around. I think Johnson’s weak libertarianism is what sends a confusing signal and harms the cause of freedom. I only “attack” Johnson in the areas in which he deviates from the cause of freedom.

Getting It Straight on JohnsonPosted by Laurence Vance on September 10, 2012 06:32 AM

Let me see if I get this straight, Gary Johnson calls himself a libertarian and is the LP nomineee for president. Although he has many weak and unlibertarian positions, including supporting the FairTax, he doesn’t hinder the cause of liberty. I am a libertarian who, unlike Johnson, has actually read Murray Rothbard, but when I point out Johnson’s shortcomings, I am hindering the cause of liberty. Glad I finally got this straight.