Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Party nomination

[g5000]

If the reason you tell me to vote for your candidate is, "The other candidate is Satan", then that tells me more about your candidate than the other candidate. It tells me your candidate sucks so much, you can't think of any reason to vote for him. All you have is, "He isn't the other guy" and that I must vote against the other candidate!

And that is the sad fucking state of affairs this "voting for the lesser of two evils" has brought us to.

You can get all the information that you need from need form the Libertarian website.

But based upon your previous posts you won't like Gary. He is Jeffersonian. The ONLY rights you will enjoy are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

FDR bill of rights will be abolished. . And as a parasite you need to suck on the government titties.

So find a pretext, we'll understand.

.

That is extremely inaccurate. There's plenty for a progressive to like about Gary Johnson. Johnson is essentially just a progressive who likes the Fair Tax.

He is a social progressive and a fiscal conservative.

 

[kaz]

Not really. You can't do whatever you want on your property, can you? Murder is still illegal on your property.

You don't have to set up a business on your property, do you? But if you decided to set up a business, you decide to follow the rules the country sets for businesses.

Now some Libertarians might say that a person should be able to serve whoever they like on their business and not serve others they don't like. However others might say that this takes away the liberty of individuals so isn't libertarianism.

And yet as libertarians I think we're the ones who get to define libertarianism. And no, that doesn't mean you get to murder people on your property, because people have a property right in themselves and murder is an example of a violation of property rights. Me not wanting to serve you a hamburger does not violate your property rights at all, but you forcing me to would violate my property rights. Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property. That's the definition.

Then define Libertarianism so that it isn't Anarchy.

Murder is a violation of property rights? What?

I think you need to define "property rights" first.

I repeat, "Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property." That doesn't have to mean anarchy, just ask any of the minarchist libertarians on this board, but it may mean anarchy to the anarcho-capitalists.

Yes, murder is a violation of property rights, of course it's not in the same realm as, say, stealing someone's television, but a violation of a higher degree. We all know what property is, but, from a libertarian perspective, my property in my material objects is derived from self-ownership. In other words, a property right in myself and my own body. Therefore, we have to logically conclude that any harm that befalls my body, assault, murder, rape, etc, is a violation of my property right in myself.

I like the way the Constitution states it, life, liberty and property. The argument your life or liberty are "property" is kind of contorted. You have a right to those things. Granted they aren't mutually exclusive, but they cover it

I don't see how it's contorted. Private property and ownership of things follows logically from self-ownership. Obviously nobody goes around calling murder a violation of property rights, but if we follow it logically that's exactly what it is. And of course there is no liberty or rights that isn't rooted in private property rights.

It's contorted because "property" are things that belong to you. You are you, you are not your own property

 

[kaz]

Proud of yourself then?

That's what I'm saying, yes. HW was a horrible President who deserved to lose, I'm glad I helped him do it

Bubba Clinton was better??????????? explain

I didn't vote for Slick, I voted for Perot. Try to keep up

So did I and we helped elect Clinton. That's the truth no matter how you spin it.

I think you're missing the point that Kaz doesn't care who won between those two. Otherwise he would have voted for one of them.

I don't get how they don't get that

 

[Redfish]

That's what I'm saying, yes. HW was a horrible President who deserved to lose, I'm glad I helped him do it

Bubba Clinton was better??????????? explain

I didn't vote for Slick, I voted for Perot. Try to keep up

So did I and we helped elect Clinton. That's the truth no matter how you spin it.

I think you're missing the point that Kaz doesn't care who won between those two. Otherwise he would have voted for one of them.

I don't get how they don't get that

I get it, I also get that its stupid and accomplishes nothing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the reason you tell me to vote for your candidate is, "The other candidate is Satan", then that tells me more about your candidate than the other candidate. It tells me your candidate sucks so much, you can't think of any reason to vote for him. All you have is, "He isn't the other guy" and that I must vote against the other candidate!

And that is the sad fucking state of affairs this "voting for the lesser of two evils" has brought us to.

You can get all the information that you need from need form the Libertarian website.

But based upon your previous posts you won't like Gary. He is Jeffersonian. The ONLY rights you will enjoy are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

FDR bill of rights will be abolished. . And as a parasite you need to suck on the government titties.

So find a pretext, we'll understand.

.

That is extremely inaccurate. There's plenty for a progressive to like about Gary Johnson. Johnson is essentially just a progressive who likes the Fair Tax.

He is a social progressive and a fiscal conservative.

Fiscal conservative: One who talks about limited government and cutting spending, while proposing budgets that don't balance for decades and ultimately increase spending by about 2% less than the Democrats would like.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And yet as libertarians I think we're the ones who get to define libertarianism. And no, that doesn't mean you get to murder people on your property, because people have a property right in themselves and murder is an example of a violation of property rights. Me not wanting to serve you a hamburger does not violate your property rights at all, but you forcing me to would violate my property rights. Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property. That's the definition.

Then define Libertarianism so that it isn't Anarchy.

Murder is a violation of property rights? What?

I think you need to define "property rights" first.

I repeat, "Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property." That doesn't have to mean anarchy, just ask any of the minarchist libertarians on this board, but it may mean anarchy to the anarcho-capitalists.

Yes, murder is a violation of property rights, of course it's not in the same realm as, say, stealing someone's television, but a violation of a higher degree. We all know what property is, but, from a libertarian perspective, my property in my material objects is derived from self-ownership. In other words, a property right in myself and my own body. Therefore, we have to logically conclude that any harm that befalls my body, assault, murder, rape, etc, is a violation of my property right in myself.

I like the way the Constitution states it, life, liberty and property. The argument your life or liberty are "property" is kind of contorted. You have a right to those things. Granted they aren't mutually exclusive, but they cover it

I don't see how it's contorted. Private property and ownership of things follows logically from self-ownership. Obviously nobody goes around calling murder a violation of property rights, but if we follow it logically that's exactly what it is. And of course there is no liberty or rights that isn't rooted in private property rights.

It's contorted because "property" are things that belong to you. You are you, you are not your own property

Of course you are. Certainly nobody else owns you, and you rightfully have full control over what you do or what happens to you so long as it doesn't affect the property of anybody else. That is the definition of ownership.

 

[kaz]

Bubba Clinton was better??????????? explain

I didn't vote for Slick, I voted for Perot. Try to keep up

So did I and we helped elect Clinton. That's the truth no matter how you spin it.

I think you're missing the point that Kaz doesn't care who won between those two. Otherwise he would have voted for one of them.

I don't get how they don't get that

I get it, I also get that its stupid and accomplishes nothing.

Funny, that's what I think about voting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum since you're either going to get your own candidate or someone identical to them. I'll grant you the parties say different things. But they don't actually do anything different

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's what I'm saying, yes. HW was a horrible President who deserved to lose, I'm glad I helped him do it

Bubba Clinton was better??????????? explain

I didn't vote for Slick, I voted for Perot. Try to keep up

So did I and we helped elect Clinton. That's the truth no matter how you spin it.

I think you're missing the point that Kaz doesn't care who won between those two. Otherwise he would have voted for one of them.

I don't get how they don't get that

I've got a theory, but it isn't very nice.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Bubba Clinton was better??????????? explain

I didn't vote for Slick, I voted for Perot. Try to keep up

So did I and we helped elect Clinton. That's the truth no matter how you spin it.

I think you're missing the point that Kaz doesn't care who won between those two. Otherwise he would have voted for one of them.

I don't get how they don't get that

I get it, I also get that its stupid and accomplishes nothing.

And what was accomplished by electing H.W. in the first place? Government grew and spending went up, so what exactly was the point?

 

[Redfish]

I didn't vote for Slick, I voted for Perot. Try to keep up

So did I and we helped elect Clinton. That's the truth no matter how you spin it.

I think you're missing the point that Kaz doesn't care who won between those two. Otherwise he would have voted for one of them.

I don't get how they don't get that

I get it, I also get that its stupid and accomplishes nothing.

Funny, that's what I think about voting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum since you're either going to get your own candidate or someone identical to them. I'll grant you the parties say different things. But they don't actually do anything different

we are going to get one of them no matter what you do. They are not equally bad, Trump is a much better choice.

Do you really want HRC putting 3 or 4 judges on the SC?

 

[kaz]

So did I and we helped elect Clinton. That's the truth no matter how you spin it.

I think you're missing the point that Kaz doesn't care who won between those two. Otherwise he would have voted for one of them.

I don't get how they don't get that

I get it, I also get that its stupid and accomplishes nothing.

Funny, that's what I think about voting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum since you're either going to get your own candidate or someone identical to them. I'll grant you the parties say different things. But they don't actually do anything different

we are going to get one of them no matter what you do. They are not equally bad, Trump is a much better choice.

Do you really want HRC putting 3 or 4 judges on the SC?

What good have Republicans done for us in that regard? At one point 7 justicies were Republican appointed and they still failed to deliver any victories for the Constitution and in particular the 10th amendment.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me over and over and over and over and I just might be a Republican ...

I thought Roberts would tip the balance and finally start making a difference. Then he found government running healthcare in the Constitution. Twice. What difference do Republican justices make?

 

[g5000]

If the reason you tell me to vote for your candidate is, "The other candidate is Satan", then that tells me more about your candidate than the other candidate. It tells me your candidate sucks so much, you can't think of any reason to vote for him. All you have is, "He isn't the other guy" and that I must vote against the other candidate!

And that is the sad fucking state of affairs this "voting for the lesser of two evils" has brought us to.

You can get all the information that you need from need form the Libertarian website.

But based upon your previous posts you won't like Gary. He is Jeffersonian. The ONLY rights you will enjoy are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

FDR bill of rights will be abolished. . And as a parasite you need to suck on the government titties.

So find a pretext, we'll understand.

.

That is extremely inaccurate. There's plenty for a progressive to like about Gary Johnson. Johnson is essentially just a progressive who likes the Fair Tax.

He is a social progressive and a fiscal conservative.

Fiscal conservative: One who talks about limited government and cutting spending, while proposing budgets that don't balance for decades and ultimately increase spending by about 2% less than the Democrats would like.

No, that's a faux conservative.

A fiscal conservative actually balances the budget. You know, like John Kasich.

If we took Johnson's plan to end tax expenditures and to raise the retirement age, we would have a huge surplus. One big enough to lower tax rates for everyone, and pay down the debt. And when the debt was paid off, we could lower tax rates for everyone even more.

I like the Fair Tax, for several reasons. But it does not matter what kind of tax plan you have if you do not first take steps to eliminate tax expenditures.

 

[g5000]

So did I and we helped elect Clinton. That's the truth no matter how you spin it.

I think you're missing the point that Kaz doesn't care who won between those two. Otherwise he would have voted for one of them.

I don't get how they don't get that

I get it, I also get that its stupid and accomplishes nothing.

Funny, that's what I think about voting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum since you're either going to get your own candidate or someone identical to them. I'll grant you the parties say different things. But they don't actually do anything different

we are going to get one of them no matter what you do. They are not equally bad, Trump is a much better choice.

Do you really want HRC putting 3 or 4 judges on the SC?

Donald Trump could appoint the corpse of Saul Alinsky to the Supreme Court, and you rubes would find a way to be okay with that.

It is amazing to me how deeply you rubes have been taken in by that huckster.

He's always been a far left limousine liberal. Every time he opened his mouth before last year, he always gave the far left policy position as his opinion. He was practically the male version of Cindy Sheehan.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the reason you tell me to vote for your candidate is, "The other candidate is Satan", then that tells me more about your candidate than the other candidate. It tells me your candidate sucks so much, you can't think of any reason to vote for him. All you have is, "He isn't the other guy" and that I must vote against the other candidate!

And that is the sad fucking state of affairs this "voting for the lesser of two evils" has brought us to.

You can get all the information that you need from need form the Libertarian website.

But based upon your previous posts you won't like Gary. He is Jeffersonian. The ONLY rights you will enjoy are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

FDR bill of rights will be abolished. . And as a parasite you need to suck on the government titties.

So find a pretext, we'll understand.

.

That is extremely inaccurate. There's plenty for a progressive to like about Gary Johnson. Johnson is essentially just a progressive who likes the Fair Tax.

He is a social progressive and a fiscal conservative.

Fiscal conservative: One who talks about limited government and cutting spending, while proposing budgets that don't balance for decades and ultimately increase spending by about 2% less than the Democrats would like.

No, that's a faux conservative.

A fiscal conservative actually balances the budget. You know, like John Kasich.

If we took Johnson's plan to end tax expenditures and to raise the retirement age, we would have a huge surplus. One big enough to lower tax rates for everyone, and pay down the debt. And when the debt was paid off, we could lower tax rates for everyone even more.

I like the Fair Tax, for several reasons. But it does not matter what kind of tax plan you have if you do not first take steps to eliminate tax expenditures.

I'm sorry, when the "faux conservatives" outnumber the "real" conservatives 10-1 it's time to start asking ourselves who the real conservatives are.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I noted a few things:

• We don’t take a little from the left and a little from the right. Our ideas come from libertarian first principles. We are neither wannabe conservatives nor wannabe liberals.
• We are certainly not “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” That sleep-inducing formula that only a think-tank president could love is an insult to the libertarian tradition.
• It’s wrong to position ourselves as people who play the game 30% differently from Democrats and Republicans. We don’t play that game, period.
• We aren’t just people who’d like less government (who wouldn’t?), or who approve of the present system but who just want it smaller.
• Ann Coulter was right: libertarians are pansies (she used a different word). They can’t say enough about legalizing pot, a position that won’t exactly get them in hot water with the New York Times. But freedom of association? The chic libertarian think-tanks and magazines can’t run away from that one fast enough.

There’s a lot more in the talk, but that’s a start.

I did catch the last portion of the presidential debate. Not blown away by anyone’s performance, but I could not get over how lackluster Gary Johnson was.

I can already hear the outrage. “Woods, you’re a perfectionist! You wouldn’t vote for anyone who isn’t Rothbard incarnate!”

I can’t have an intelligent conversation with someone who argues like that. My point is: why are people so gung-ho about such a dull, ponderous, and unimpressive guy?

Where is his intellectual curiosity? Where is his growth since last time? Where is his knowledge of libertarian ideas?

Oh, Woods, we don’t need your scholarly nagging. We need a man of action!

So it’s all right that when asked if the U.S. should have entered the world wars, his answer was “I don’t know”?

His supporters cheered, by the way. At least he didn’t lie to us, they said.

Can’t we have slightly higher standards than that?

He would have signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he said in a one-word answer. Governor Johnson, you have time left. Would you like to explain your answer?

“No.”

Can you think of a time when Ron Paul, who was all about ideas, didn’t jump at the chance to elaborate on an answer?

Governor Johnson, 83% of law professors are Democrats. Can you think of any potential problems that might cause?

He couldn’t think of one.

How deep is this guy’s understanding of what we are facing?

My Speech to the Libertarian Party Convention: We’re Not Wannabe Liberals or Wannabe Conservatives | Tom Woods

This is pretty important, especially for those who insist libertarians are "socially liberal and fiscally conservative."

 

[ChrisL]

If the reason you tell me to vote for your candidate is, "The other candidate is Satan", then that tells me more about your candidate than the other candidate. It tells me your candidate sucks so much, you can't think of any reason to vote for him. All you have is, "He isn't the other guy" and that I must vote against the other candidate!

And that is the sad fucking state of affairs this "voting for the lesser of two evils" has brought us to.

You can get all the information that you need from need form the Libertarian website.

But based upon your previous posts you won't like Gary. He is Jeffersonian. The ONLY rights you will enjoy are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

FDR bill of rights will be abolished. . And as a parasite you need to suck on the government titties.

So find a pretext, we'll understand.

.

That is extremely inaccurate. There's plenty for a progressive to like about Gary Johnson. Johnson is essentially just a progressive who likes the Fair Tax.

He is a social progressive and a fiscal conservative.

Fiscal conservative: One who talks about limited government and cutting spending, while proposing budgets that don't balance for decades and ultimately increase spending by about 2% less than the Democrats would like.

No, that's a faux conservative.

A fiscal conservative actually balances the budget. You know, like John Kasich.

If we took Johnson's plan to end tax expenditures and to raise the retirement age, we would have a huge surplus. One big enough to lower tax rates for everyone, and pay down the debt. And when the debt was paid off, we could lower tax rates for everyone even more.

I like the Fair Tax, for several reasons. But it does not matter what kind of tax plan you have if you do not first take steps to eliminate tax expenditures.

Seems as if they didn't want a Mr. Kasich. They like Trump because he's an obnoxious big mouth just like they are!

 

[kaz]

You can get all the information that you need from need form the Libertarian website.

But based upon your previous posts you won't like Gary. He is Jeffersonian. The ONLY rights you will enjoy are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

FDR bill of rights will be abolished. . And as a parasite you need to suck on the government titties.

So find a pretext, we'll understand.

.

That is extremely inaccurate. There's plenty for a progressive to like about Gary Johnson. Johnson is essentially just a progressive who likes the Fair Tax.

He is a social progressive and a fiscal conservative.

Fiscal conservative: One who talks about limited government and cutting spending, while proposing budgets that don't balance for decades and ultimately increase spending by about 2% less than the Democrats would like.

No, that's a faux conservative.

A fiscal conservative actually balances the budget. You know, like John Kasich.

If we took Johnson's plan to end tax expenditures and to raise the retirement age, we would have a huge surplus. One big enough to lower tax rates for everyone, and pay down the debt. And when the debt was paid off, we could lower tax rates for everyone even more.

I like the Fair Tax, for several reasons. But it does not matter what kind of tax plan you have if you do not first take steps to eliminate tax expenditures.

I'm sorry, when the "faux conservatives" outnumber the "real" conservatives 10-1 it's time to start asking ourselves who the real conservatives are.

He thinks real conservatives are a bunch of racists

 

[The Rabbi]

I think you're missing the point that Kaz doesn't care who won between those two. Otherwise he would have voted for one of them.

I don't get how they don't get that

I get it, I also get that its stupid and accomplishes nothing.

Funny, that's what I think about voting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum since you're either going to get your own candidate or someone identical to them. I'll grant you the parties say different things. But they don't actually do anything different

we are going to get one of them no matter what you do. They are not equally bad, Trump is a much better choice.

Do you really want HRC putting 3 or 4 judges on the SC?

What good have Republicans done for us in that regard? At one point 7 justicies were Republican appointed and they still failed to deliver any victories for the Constitution and in particular the 10th amendment.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me over and over and over and over and I just might be a Republican ...

I thought Roberts would tip the balance and finally start making a difference. Then he found government running healthcare in the Constitution. Twice. What difference do Republican justices make?

Oh you mean like Heller and McDonald? Not to mention dozens of cases where they slapped down Obama, like the raisin case.

 

[kaz]

I don't get how they don't get that

I get it, I also get that its stupid and accomplishes nothing.

Funny, that's what I think about voting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum since you're either going to get your own candidate or someone identical to them. I'll grant you the parties say different things. But they don't actually do anything different

we are going to get one of them no matter what you do. They are not equally bad, Trump is a much better choice.

Do you really want HRC putting 3 or 4 judges on the SC?

What good have Republicans done for us in that regard? At one point 7 justicies were Republican appointed and they still failed to deliver any victories for the Constitution and in particular the 10th amendment.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me over and over and over and over and I just might be a Republican ...

I thought Roberts would tip the balance and finally start making a difference. Then he found government running healthcare in the Constitution. Twice. What difference do Republican justices make?

Oh you mean like Heller and McDonald? Not to mention dozens of cases where they slapped down Obama, like the raisin case.

Obamacare is such a massively destructive force that it dwarfs everything else. Obamacare and Social Security/Medicare are the two greatest insidiously evil government programs in our history because they make every American a dependent of government

 

[The Rabbi]

I get it, I also get that its stupid and accomplishes nothing.

Funny, that's what I think about voting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum since you're either going to get your own candidate or someone identical to them. I'll grant you the parties say different things. But they don't actually do anything different

we are going to get one of them no matter what you do. They are not equally bad, Trump is a much better choice.

Do you really want HRC putting 3 or 4 judges on the SC?

What good have Republicans done for us in that regard? At one point 7 justicies were Republican appointed and they still failed to deliver any victories for the Constitution and in particular the 10th amendment.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me over and over and over and over and I just might be a Republican ...

I thought Roberts would tip the balance and finally start making a difference. Then he found government running healthcare in the Constitution. Twice. What difference do Republican justices make?

Oh you mean like Heller and McDonald? Not to mention dozens of cases where they slapped down Obama, like the raisin case.

Obamacare is such a massively destructive force that it dwarfs everything else. Obamacare and Social Security/Medicare are the two greatest insidiously evil government programs in our history because they make every American a dependent of government

OK so your statement "they failed to deliver any victories for the Constitution" is true only if you think Obamacare was the only case that had to do with the Constitution.
It must be nice to make your own rules.