I’ve been thinking that he was. What do other people here think about him? Is he really too moderate? Is he Austrian?
Here’s my reasons for thinking he’s too moderate:
He doesn’t favor legalizing drunk driving (I assume that from when he said something like “it obviously shouldn’t be legal to drive under the influence of marijuana or anything that endangers the public safety”).
He supports a flat tax (which sucks like FairTheft)
He supports the ideas of Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand wasn’t a good spokesperson for capitalism IMO, largely because of her selfishness doctrine which is at odds with voluntaryism, and she supported IP laws)
He’s talking about reforming the Federal Reserve, which is like talking about reforming anything that can’t be reformed. Doesn’t matter who runs it, whether we’re on the gold standard, etc., you can’t reform central banking.
I’m beginning to wonder if all he cares about is winning, which I think he has a good chance of winning. Certainly a better chance of winning than Dr. Paul:(
The way he’s going… he certainly ain’t going to enlighten anyone, nor stir up supporters. When are these clowns going to realise, you need to be radical and principled to change hearts and minds, even when its not popular to do so.
“Certainly a better chance of winning than Dr. Paul:(”
No, because Ron Paul wins regardless of the outcome. He wins by spreading the message, which is the only thing that will change others. Ron has openly stated, getting elected more people, even who are liberty minded - to vote in congress, won’t change jack shit.
Rand Paul and other tea partiers of the same ilk are largely useless. They are strawmen for the freemarket.
Whats your definition of Capitalism if it is not allowing each to earn his own living and keep it to? What particularly is wrong with Rand’s point of view?
wasn’t aware that legalizing drunk driving was really a liberty issue. Do you think private road owners are going to allow drunks on their roads? I know the point is that the government is in no position to make rules on property it came to own through theft, but there are probably about a 1,000 issues that need to be changed quicker than legalizing drunk driving. Also, given how unpopular that would be publicly, you might be better off just arguing for selling all the roads to private companies and use the excuse of budget gaps to pay for helping out the poor, elderly, young, sick, etc.
I definitely agree with Joe. I mean, I’d prefer that government didn’t exist or own roads at all, but if they’re going to monopolize roads, I’d like them to keep drunk drivers off the roads
Libertarians for the nanny state…no, I don’t think private road owners would allow drunks, at least most of them. The government is not a legitimate owner of anything, though.
On Gary Johnson, I’m concerned in addition about taking things the wrong direction. I’m particularly concerned about his support for prison privatization.