Gary Johnson is running as the Libertarian presidential candidate and this man should be heard. There is another option besides Obama or Romney. A vote unused is truly wasted. Vote Libertarian with me and help create some real change! http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues
Gary Johnson is running as the Libertarian presidential candidate and this man should be heard. There is another option besides Obama or Romney. A vote unused is truly wasted. Vote Libertarian with me and help create some real change! http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues
Unfortunately, there is little to no chance of anyone who is not a Democrat or Republican getting elected. Thus a vote for a third party Presidential candidate is a vote wasted, or a vote for the incumbent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
I think his heart is in the right place, but his ideas are a bit off.
His internet issue page seems amazing, but several parts of it including the part about net neutrality and internet shutoff rub me the wrong way. I don't think he understands the point of them at all...
I think his heart is in the right place, but his ideas are a bit off.
His internet issue page seems amazing, but several parts of it including the part about net neutrality and internet shutoff rub me the wrong way. I don't think he understands the point of them at all...
I tend to agree here, the problem I have with libertarianism is that while their heart is in the right place they've not totally upgraded their policies like the Democrats and Republicans. Republicans seem to want to run Reagan 2.0, Democrats want FDR 2.0, and libertarians want something between Rutherford B. Hayes, Coolridge, and Andrew Jackson.
Frankly, we need 21st century objectives that deal with the necessary reforms to Congressional parliamentary rules that allows for old men to take up residence in a committee chair and reign over it like Byrd did. The Senate was has yet to achieve it's Golden Age comparison since the mid 19th century prior to the Civil War. In part, Congress has given too much to the executive branch because it's a paste eating, opportunistic moboracy with arcane parliamentary rules mastered by Dixiecrats to mastermind policy that today has become more and more banal under today's two party system.
Where are the grand debates? Institutional reform will take generations, but it dies in the Senate.... Frankly, we've yet tried to tinker with Congress as an institution might come to instead of worrying about the judicial branch, executive branch, the Fed, and ect. go straight to where all policy originates and look at reforming that first.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Gary Johnson would probably be the least oppressive slave-master. But he is pretty far from being a true libertarian. He is more like republican light.
I'm alright with a vote for Gary being a vote for Obama though because between Romney and Obama I think Obama is the least likely of creating a nuclear war between us or Israel and Iran or any other part of the middle east.
At least with Obama we know were are in for some terrible socialist policy making attempts. Where as Romney is more of a weather vane turning wherever the political winds blow. Which is trouble considering the amount of war mongering this chicken-hawk is already inciting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
All in all, I think I like this guy better than either Romney or Obama. That being said, as others have pointed out, voting for him is a waste of time.
Unfortunately, there is little to no chance of anyone who is not a Democrat or Republican getting elected. Thus a vote for a third party Presidential candidate is a vote wasted, or a vote for the incumbent.
...or a vote for anyone for that matter. But, that's another subject entirely.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
I was going to vote for him, but I realized that he will most likely not get elected. Hence, I will be voting Democrat. I realize this is somewhat flawed logic, but it is being pragmatic as I would like my vote to count.
Like all Libertarians, Gary Johnson would love to see the government do nothing but build roads and mantain an army.
This means no Pell Grants, no medicare, no social security. No fed to keep the economy from completely collapsing onto itself.
he and others like him want to rewind social development to around 1880 or thereabouts. You know, when the rich could get away with pretty much everything.
Like all Libertarians, Gary Johnson would love to see the government do nothing but build roads and mantain an army.
This means no Pell Grants, no medicare, no social security. No fed to keep the economy from completely collapsing onto itself.
he and others like him want to rewind social development to around 1880 or thereabouts. You know, when the rich could get away with pretty much everything.
I'd like to see regulatory compliance of the 1950's and 60's whenever multiple innovations were far easier and opening up a high capital investment like a plant was easier. Yet, maintain high quality so we don't get as much pollution and such. And with the rise of more disruptive technologies for business it has helped to keep larger firms from "getting too big to fail" and centralizing. Wise hastening for the business process and easing regulatory compliance would actually help, what doesn't help is that liberals use the courts and local regulations to stop businesses from forming. It takes too many years to open certain kinds of plants, some industries you can have all your equipment in place, building, and ready to go and still wait a year to hear back from Uncle Sam.
This means that in terms of regulations, deregulating, reregulating, and stopping the gamesmanship with trying to stop businesses altogether from perpetuating. I often prefer the ordoliberal response to extremely bad business, "we revoke your charter and you cease to exist as an entity to be able to practice here." Do that a few times to the worst offenders like banning BP from opening new oil rigs and allowing their competitors the lucrative contracts can and will punish bad behaviors.
The other factor would be to peal back some of the socialism and force the middle class to invest in itself more with a higher savings rate rather than just consuming. 70% consumption economy is a bit stagnate. Do we really need a Medicare system for the upper middle class and higher? Meanwhile we have a ****ty system to take care of veterans and other youth with invisible wounds?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
To be honest, I don't understand the appeal of the Libertarian party. Not enough government is just as bad as too much government. If a Libertarian ever got elected, I feel like corporations would just trample all over everyone even more than they do now.
To be honest, I don't understand the appeal of the Libertarian party. Not enough government is just as bad as too much government. If a Libertarian ever got elected, I feel like corporations would just trample all over everyone even more than they do now.
I would take this point one step further. The government is at least in theory beholden to the people. Sure, a lot of people are sheep and can be bent with the right words and talking points, but at least on the surface, the government has to be mindful of what the people want, and if that includes change, there has to be at least superficial "reforms".
Corporations don't have even this much going for them. They are legally beholden to maximize profit at all expense or risk shareholder lawsuits. Without a well managed government to keep them in check, I see the corporations becoming the state (if they aren't already). I guess at least corporations are honest in stating that they're only out for themselves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former Level 2 Judge (Retired / Renounced)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
To be honest, I don't understand the appeal of the Libertarian party. Not enough government is just as bad as too much government. If a Libertarian ever got elected, I feel like corporations would just trample all over everyone even more than they do now.
They want to kill off corporations in a fashion like ending corporate personhood, since essentially they're a chartered form of government and worship the entrepreneur. The main attraction to the philosophy is to maximize personal utility and not have to deal with the tedium of bureaucratic manifestations and "just do what you need to do to get the job done."
Some of the more Rothbardianism, I feel is more of a historical manifestation and a good effort by the Mises Institution and Paul in general to hitch up to the young. Along with a perpetual worship of Ayn Rand in conservative circles. The Rothbard impulse seems to be in part a reflect of a few historical forces:
1. Market fundamentalism, the belief that "markets do not fail" and that governments make markets fail. This coordinates with the rise of Goldwater culminating into the 1980's rise of Reagan.
2. Two unfunded wars, multiple foreign entanglements, massive deficits, and a young population whose been overused as volunteer peacekeepers in far flung nations and in part feel cheated by their government.
3. High youth unemployment, globalization forcing jobs out of the country, productivity increases destroying certain jobs altogether, rise of disruptive technologies and a generation not always educated enough to take advantage of those technologies, and a large demographics bomb with Boomers who as a generation lack savings and have AARP and other forces seeking to "pull an Argentina."
4. Breakdown of the civil institutions during the reign of Boomers and the rise of Xers, best seen through the work of Bowling Alone by Putnam.
5. Government increased in size, but underfunded "good areas" like infrastructure and really dropped the ball on education by making testing be the new panacea to fix the nation's education woes.
6. Rise of the "leave me alone, don't tell me what to do" attitude that coincided with consumerism and rampant individualism to "have it your way"
It comes from also a romantic impulse at heart that people are inherently "good" or at least better as an individual than as a collective. These impulses are very much inherently American with roots tracing back to the 18th century and the rise of gentility and utopianism. So a person who has a romantic view of people or a dark, hegemonic view of government or both will maintain that "governments are always villainous." To which when you consider some folks' affinity for libertarianism, such as young military persons, in a way you can't blame them because their government did fail their generation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Unfortunately, there is little to no chance of anyone who is not a Democrat or Republican getting elected. Thus a vote for a third party Presidential candidate is a vote wasted, or a vote for the incumbent.
As long as people think like this, that is. I get really aggravated by mentality like this. You vote for whoever you want to, and I will vote for whoever I want to. But dont tell me my vote is less important then yours because of who I choose to vote for. /rant
To be honest, I don't understand the appeal of the Libertarian party. Not enough government is just as bad as too much government. If a Libertarian ever got elected, I feel like corporations would just trample all over everyone even more than they do now.
There is a lot of appeal to being a libertarian when the government has become more and more intrusive in our lives. Every US president, including Reagan, since around the middle of the 20th century has increased the size of the government. Captain Morgan explained it eloquently well, but it's fairly simple: I want excessive government out of my life, but instead we keep getting more and more of it.
Like all Libertarians, Gary Johnson would love to see the government do nothing but build roads and mantain an army.
This means no Pell Grants, no medicare, no social security. No fed to keep the economy from completely collapsing onto itself.
he and others like him want to rewind social development to around 1880 or thereabouts. You know, when the rich could get away with pretty much everything.
Wait, you mean you think the Fed actually is a positive economic force?! Please excuse me while I guffaw uncontrollably...
LOL
Ah, that's better. Anyway, the Fed is responsible for the bubbles, crashes, and complete devaluation of our unstable fiat currency. Speaking of the rich getting away with everything, back in 1880, they didn't have the Fed to watch their financial backs. Now they do. Also, what you refer to as social 'development' has spawned numerous bloated federal bureaucracies with little or no oversight, created an unsustainable welfare state (Great Society, courtesy of Pres. Johnson) and initiated a giant Ponzi scheme that is now only years away from collapsing catastrophically (Social Security). It has seen the complete erosion of Constitutional Federal legislative authority, with judicial and presidential fiat + federal regulations now on par with legislation passed through both houses, and it has managed to accumulate debt over GDP.
Take a step back, and ask yourself: "Is this progress?"
As long as people think like this, that is. I get really aggravated by mentality like this. You vote for whoever you want to, and I will vote for whoever I want to. But dont tell me my vote is less important then yours because of who I choose to vote for. /rant
Exactly... If individual votes don't matter anyway, why not vote for someone you actually support?
Unfortunately, there is little to no chance of anyone who is not a Democrat or Republican getting elected. Thus a vote for a third party Presidential candidate is a vote wasted, or a vote for the incumbent.
His internet issue page seems amazing, but several parts of it including the part about net neutrality and internet shutoff rub me the wrong way. I don't think he understands the point of them at all...
I tend to agree here, the problem I have with libertarianism is that while their heart is in the right place they've not totally upgraded their policies like the Democrats and Republicans. Republicans seem to want to run Reagan 2.0, Democrats want FDR 2.0, and libertarians want something between Rutherford B. Hayes, Coolridge, and Andrew Jackson.
Frankly, we need 21st century objectives that deal with the necessary reforms to Congressional parliamentary rules that allows for old men to take up residence in a committee chair and reign over it like Byrd did. The Senate was has yet to achieve it's Golden Age comparison since the mid 19th century prior to the Civil War. In part, Congress has given too much to the executive branch because it's a paste eating, opportunistic moboracy with arcane parliamentary rules mastered by Dixiecrats to mastermind policy that today has become more and more banal under today's two party system.
Where are the grand debates? Institutional reform will take generations, but it dies in the Senate.... Frankly, we've yet tried to tinker with Congress as an institution might come to instead of worrying about the judicial branch, executive branch, the Fed, and ect. go straight to where all policy originates and look at reforming that first.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I'm alright with a vote for Gary being a vote for Obama though because between Romney and Obama I think Obama is the least likely of creating a nuclear war between us or Israel and Iran or any other part of the middle east.
At least with Obama we know were are in for some terrible socialist policy making attempts. Where as Romney is more of a weather vane turning wherever the political winds blow. Which is trouble considering the amount of war mongering this chicken-hawk is already inciting.
...or a vote for anyone for that matter. But, that's another subject entirely.
This means no Pell Grants, no medicare, no social security. No fed to keep the economy from completely collapsing onto itself.
he and others like him want to rewind social development to around 1880 or thereabouts. You know, when the rich could get away with pretty much everything.
I'd like to see regulatory compliance of the 1950's and 60's whenever multiple innovations were far easier and opening up a high capital investment like a plant was easier. Yet, maintain high quality so we don't get as much pollution and such. And with the rise of more disruptive technologies for business it has helped to keep larger firms from "getting too big to fail" and centralizing. Wise hastening for the business process and easing regulatory compliance would actually help, what doesn't help is that liberals use the courts and local regulations to stop businesses from forming. It takes too many years to open certain kinds of plants, some industries you can have all your equipment in place, building, and ready to go and still wait a year to hear back from Uncle Sam.
This means that in terms of regulations, deregulating, reregulating, and stopping the gamesmanship with trying to stop businesses altogether from perpetuating. I often prefer the ordoliberal response to extremely bad business, "we revoke your charter and you cease to exist as an entity to be able to practice here." Do that a few times to the worst offenders like banning BP from opening new oil rigs and allowing their competitors the lucrative contracts can and will punish bad behaviors.
The other factor would be to peal back some of the socialism and force the middle class to invest in itself more with a higher savings rate rather than just consuming. 70% consumption economy is a bit stagnate. Do we really need a Medicare system for the upper middle class and higher? Meanwhile we have a ****ty system to take care of veterans and other youth with invisible wounds?
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I would take this point one step further. The government is at least in theory beholden to the people. Sure, a lot of people are sheep and can be bent with the right words and talking points, but at least on the surface, the government has to be mindful of what the people want, and if that includes change, there has to be at least superficial "reforms".
Corporations don't have even this much going for them. They are legally beholden to maximize profit at all expense or risk shareholder lawsuits. Without a well managed government to keep them in check, I see the corporations becoming the state (if they aren't already). I guess at least corporations are honest in stating that they're only out for themselves.
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
They want to kill off corporations in a fashion like ending corporate personhood, since essentially they're a chartered form of government and worship the entrepreneur. The main attraction to the philosophy is to maximize personal utility and not have to deal with the tedium of bureaucratic manifestations and "just do what you need to do to get the job done."
Some of the more Rothbardianism, I feel is more of a historical manifestation and a good effort by the Mises Institution and Paul in general to hitch up to the young. Along with a perpetual worship of Ayn Rand in conservative circles. The Rothbard impulse seems to be in part a reflect of a few historical forces:
1. Market fundamentalism, the belief that "markets do not fail" and that governments make markets fail. This coordinates with the rise of Goldwater culminating into the 1980's rise of Reagan.
2. Two unfunded wars, multiple foreign entanglements, massive deficits, and a young population whose been overused as volunteer peacekeepers in far flung nations and in part feel cheated by their government.
3. High youth unemployment, globalization forcing jobs out of the country, productivity increases destroying certain jobs altogether, rise of disruptive technologies and a generation not always educated enough to take advantage of those technologies, and a large demographics bomb with Boomers who as a generation lack savings and have AARP and other forces seeking to "pull an Argentina."
4. Breakdown of the civil institutions during the reign of Boomers and the rise of Xers, best seen through the work of Bowling Alone by Putnam.
5. Government increased in size, but underfunded "good areas" like infrastructure and really dropped the ball on education by making testing be the new panacea to fix the nation's education woes.
6. Rise of the "leave me alone, don't tell me what to do" attitude that coincided with consumerism and rampant individualism to "have it your way"
It comes from also a romantic impulse at heart that people are inherently "good" or at least better as an individual than as a collective. These impulses are very much inherently American with roots tracing back to the 18th century and the rise of gentility and utopianism. So a person who has a romantic view of people or a dark, hegemonic view of government or both will maintain that "governments are always villainous." To which when you consider some folks' affinity for libertarianism, such as young military persons, in a way you can't blame them because their government did fail their generation.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
As long as people think like this, that is. I get really aggravated by mentality like this. You vote for whoever you want to, and I will vote for whoever I want to. But dont tell me my vote is less important then yours because of who I choose to vote for. /rant
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
There is a lot of appeal to being a libertarian when the government has become more and more intrusive in our lives. Every US president, including Reagan, since around the middle of the 20th century has increased the size of the government. Captain Morgan explained it eloquently well, but it's fairly simple: I want excessive government out of my life, but instead we keep getting more and more of it.
Wait, you mean you think the Fed actually is a positive economic force?! Please excuse me while I guffaw uncontrollably...
LOL
Ah, that's better. Anyway, the Fed is responsible for the bubbles, crashes, and complete devaluation of our unstable fiat currency. Speaking of the rich getting away with everything, back in 1880, they didn't have the Fed to watch their financial backs. Now they do. Also, what you refer to as social 'development' has spawned numerous bloated federal bureaucracies with little or no oversight, created an unsustainable welfare state (Great Society, courtesy of Pres. Johnson) and initiated a giant Ponzi scheme that is now only years away from collapsing catastrophically (Social Security). It has seen the complete erosion of Constitutional Federal legislative authority, with judicial and presidential fiat + federal regulations now on par with legislation passed through both houses, and it has managed to accumulate debt over GDP.
Take a step back, and ask yourself: "Is this progress?"
Exactly... If individual votes don't matter anyway, why not vote for someone you actually support?