Gary Johnson AMA

[Pseudo Nym]

So Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Gary Johnson did an AMA on reddit today, some of you might find it interesting: I am Gov. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for President. AMA. : IAmA

Here's a post with all his answers collected in one place.

I wonder how some of the more anarchist-inclined here feel about answers such as this:

Government exists to protect us against individuals, groups, and corporations that would do us harm. Rules and regulations should exist to accommodate this. The EPA protects us against those that would pollute, and without them a lot more polluters would be allowed to pollute.

Or his support for the FairTax (taxation is theft after all, right?).

 

[music4mic]

yeh, he's not very libertarian on a lot of issues, although he's certainly better than the alternatives.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZE6No6vo0I&feature=player_embedded"]Robert Wenzel Grills Gary Johnson on "Hardcore" Libertarianism - Economic Policy Journal 2012-6-2 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[schockergd]

He's not "Hardcore" because hardcore ones want anarchy. Gary is essentially a classical liberal/Jeffersonian democrat as far as politics go. He would literally be the best thing we could ever hope for as a nation as president goes.

 

[xmcp123]

yeh, he's not very libertarian on a lot of issues, although he's certainly better than the alternatives.

Robert Wenzel Grills Gary Johnson on "Hardcore" Libertarianism - Economic Policy Journal 2012-6-2 - YouTube

Gary Johnson is not from the an-cap/gold standard section of the Libertarian party. He's the closest there is to a moderate Libertarian, but he's a Libertarian none the less. I'll be voting for him.

 

[lukep]

^What they all said.

He certainly did good things for New Mexico as governor, (Like turning a huge deficit into a surplus) so he deserves our votes, and unlike other libertarians running, he will be on the ballot in every state... So if every libertarian or anarchist voted for GJ then we'd have a nice quantification of how large we've become.

...That is if the votes were recorded at all. I doubt it.

 

[REIMktg]

Anyone have a video link where this guy appears "likable"?

How can you guys like him?

1. His statement on the EPA shows his "TRUST" in government.
2. Maybe I am wrong here, after all I went to public school, but where does the constitution support gay marriage? Why does the Gov't even interfere in marriage at all?

 

[music4mic]

Gary Johnson is not from the an-cap/gold standard section of the Libertarian party. He's the closest there is to a moderate Libertarian, but he's a Libertarian none the less. I'll be voting for him.

I think he's more of a socially-liberally-fiscally-common-sense kind of guy than libertarian, which is better than the overwhelming majority of politicians. I'll probably just write in my dog's name for the general election though.

 

[liams]

2. Maybe I am wrong here, after all I went to public school, but where does the constitution support gay marriage? Why does the Gov't even interfere in marriage at all?

It's not a "marriage" issue as much as it's a "civil rights" issue.

There's a case to be made that it's covered by the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection" clause. It's widely expected the US Supreme Court will confirm this within the next few years once some existing cases work their way through the system.

 

[Moxie]

Anyone have a video link where this guy appears "likable"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPYOvOcBgOg]Governor Johnson: My Neighbor's Dogs Have Created More Jobs Than Obama - YouTube[/ame]

 

[BlokBlok]

I donated to him today because fuck everyone.

 

[Reive]

It's not a "marriage" issue as much as it's a "civil rights" issue.

There's a case to be made that it's covered by the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection" clause. It's widely expected the US Supreme Court will confirm this within the next few years once some existing cases work their way through the system.

The religious should've never allowed government to get their hands on marriage if they wanted to keep full control of it. Now that it's a legally defined term with certain tax/practical benefits it only seems fair that gays get in on the action, too.

They must get government out of marriage, or accept that gays will be let in.

 

[REIMktg]

It's widely expected the US Supreme Court will confirm this within the next few years once some existing cases work their way through the system.

yeah, probably.
Strange, how it is thought of as a civil right. I mean really? It's not like anyone is stopping a civil union. Is the "civil right" the right to the word "Marriage"?
What happens if the religious decide they want to get "Coupled" and not married - would they then have a civil right to that word too?

 

[ly2 from WF]

Governor Johnson: My Neighbor's Dogs Have Created More Jobs Than Obama - YouTube

stupid. his team probably worked all day coming up with that stupid fucking 1 liner.

 

[liams]

yeah, probably.
Strange, how it is thought of as a civil right. I mean really? It's not like anyone is stopping a civil union. Is the "civil right" the right to the word "Marriage"?
What happens if the religious decide they want to get "Coupled" and not married - would they then have a civil right to that word too?

30 states have amended their constitutions to stop civil unions, by formally redefining marriage to be between a man and a woman. It's a civil right in the sense that marriage grants two people certain legal rights that gay people otherwise cannot have. Somehow the religious/social ceremony became hopelessly intertwined with legal standing. Grant equal protection to the legal status and be free to call "marriage" whatever the fuck you want.

The ideal solution would be to retroactively replace everybody's marriage license with a civil union contract, then, going forward, allow any two consenting adults to enter into said contract provided that they are not already in one. Base all legal rights on that. This lets the fundies maintain their "sanctity of marriage" (notwithstanding that red states have the highest divorce rates) while giving LGBT full and equal civil and legal protection.

 

[dreamache]

Originally Posted by GovGaryJohnson
Government exists to protect us against individuals, groups, and corporations that would do us harm. Rules and regulations should exist to accommodate this.

A monopoly of violence (government) is the very place that individuals who would do us harm tend to gravitate.

..because evil people exist, is the best reason against forming governments.

 

[danke]

Tired of President Obama because he doesn't share any of your political views? Here's a reasonable idea:

Instead of voting for the only other candidate that has the eye of the American public & media (who shares some values with you, maybe less than you'd like, but more than the President) why don't you just vote for a guy who most Americans don't even know exist?

Why should you be expected to compromise in any way? Reality is 100% black and white and voting for a guy who's going to get less than 2% of the popular vote is a surefire way of saying "I'm an idiot who will complain about the current administration so I'll vote for the one candidate sure to have no chance because I don't want my vote to matter.".

Good plan

Outb4... lukep and any other people who obviously spend WAY TOO much time on the Internet watching videos on "liberty" to forget that there's this pesky thing called "reality".

Also out because... Well, I literally don't give a shit what some conspiracy wackos think. I'm a libertarian (outb4 "you're not a real libertarian") who realized that Romney was going to be the candidate of choice back when H.W. Bush endorsed him. I'm also a libertarian the same way Rand Paul is and understands that you need to change a two party system from within, not from making thousands of masturbatory posts on the Internet then voting for a nobody third party candidate.

Good luck bros

 

[Moxie]

I'm also a libertarian the same way Rand Paul is

His endorsement of Romney is likely just because he hopes it will help himself in the future, not because he thinks Romney will make much of a difference. Rand has said that gridlock is better than having either party control both congress and the presidency, and in his book he said that Clinton was preferable to Bush economically.

Obama getting reelected allows Rand to run in 4 years, and 8 years of one party holding the presidency tends to make it easier for the other to win, as the public opinion pendulum becomes more likely to swing back the other way. Romney winning means Rand potentially having to wait 8 years and running against the pendulum. I'm sure he is aware of all this.

 

[REIMktg]

Somehow the religious/social ceremony became hopelessly intertwined with legal standing. Grant equal protection to the legal status and be free to call "marriage" whatever the fuck you want.

How about grant equal protection and yet not the word "marriage" - I bet the LGBT will not be satisfied. They want forced acceptance.

(notwithstanding that red states have the highest divorce rates)

Nice fact drop. Many explanations of this not the least of which is those that are not really Christian, but simply identify themselves as such without understanding.

A monopoly of violence (government) is the very place that individuals who would do us harm tend to gravitate.

..because evil people exist, is the best reason against forming governments.

The fact that Evil people exist is precisely why I say Anarchy can never work. Not to mention the lazy that simply want to follow and find the path of least resistance those Evil people

His endorsement of Romney is likely just because he hopes it will help himself in the future, not because he thinks Romney will make much of a difference.

Clearly not a "leader" in any real sense. Sounds more like a politician, capitalizing on his Father's name, without true conviction.

 

[dreamache]

The fact that Evil people exist is precisely why I say Anarchy can never work.

I'd never say never. I'm hopeful that some day, probably in the distant future, people will eventually wake up to the fact that governments have been tried, have failed, and are nothing but destructive monopolies held by evil people.. and if a state of voluntarism/anarchy/an-cap is reached, society as a whole would quickly squash any attempts of evil people to rule them.

 

[Napolean]

Gary Johnson gives me the impression that he's developing his platform as he goes. I really don't like any of his answers to many questions, especially when he's thinking on his feet.

I was already on the fence about Ron Paul. I started out very enthusiastic and even helped a lot with his campaigning, I even traveled for it. Now, even if he got the nomination I'm not positive that I would vote for him or anybody.