Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Party nomination

[amrchaos]

Gary Johnson takes the un-libertarian position that governments can punish those who exercise their free-will to not participate in something that is against their beliefs. We’re not talking about a physical harm between two parties; we are talking about an exercise of conscience. Here, it is baking a cake specific for a homosexual wedding. It could be any kind of situation where a customer asks a business to engage in something against one’s beliefs. In this light, Austin Petersen rightly makes a comparison about forcing a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi customer. You can see Johnson squirm as his libertarian credentials take a serious hit. Johnson favors punishing who he has a disagreement of conscience over a misguided “progressive” interpretations of discrimination and equality. He ultimately favors empowering the state over the individual. He favors compulsion.

Maybe he just sees the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy.

Or he prefers compulsion over the free market and slavery over liberty. If he is truly libertarian, he'll leave the businessman alone, choose to personally not do business if that's what his conscience dictates, and leave the government out of the equation.

libertarianism: definition of libertarianism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

Definition of “libertarian” | Collins English Dictionary

"a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc"

Definition of LIBERTARIANISM

"a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government"

Three quite different definitions from three dictionaries.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]"

I think I prefer Wikipedia's version.

What is The Libertarian Party?

"Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility."

It's not that much different to what the Libertarians say themselves.

So, it's about liberty which is about not being controlled by the government or others.

However, I'd say, like any right, there are limitations. Many freedoms conflict with other freedoms, many desires of free will conflict with other desires of free will. Who is there to mediate between the two? Should it be a free for all? No, that's Anarchy.

Libertarianism would be maximum freedom for all, which requires government regulation in order to achieve this.

So, I'd say liberty is the ability to walk down the street, go into any public business and conduct business there. If I am denied conducting business the same as everyone else, then I don't have liberty.
If I am denied service in a shop because I am black, or because I am a woman, or because I am gay, or because I have a deformed part of my body, or if I am denied because of something I was born with, then I am not free, I don't have liberty.

anarchy: definition of anarchy in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Anarchy

"A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:"

This is what some people believe is Libertarianism. It's not.

Libertarians believe in maximizing an individual rights, not allowing individual to have absolute freedom. There is a distinction, a balance , between the rights of the individual and society need for order.

The problem with libertarians is thast they have yet to agree on exactly where that point is. This theoretical problem is a source for infighting between libertarians and anarchist.

Yes, SOME libertarians(and most anarchist) believes that individuals have the right to discriminate. However, allowing people to act upon their personal bias greatly undermines society!

That has been demonstrated time and again, from race to religion to nationality. Society suffers due to slow ability for it to become homogenized due to several distinct groups refusing to 'socialize' with each other.

The bakers refusing to bake a cake is a good example.
Is it the same?
1 Christian bakers and gay couple?
2 Jewish bakers and Nazi Org?
3 KKK members that bake and Black couple?
3a Black baker and KKK member
And a special case
4. Iraqi baker and US vet

Why did I add 4? I had seen something similar to this

In my opinion, they all must bake the cake. The libertarian position appears to suggest otherwise, they all can refuse.

But 4, is telling. It should lead you into deeper questions about this little problem.

What is the purpose of society? When rights conflict, what principles should apply to determine who is right or wrong?

What about the counterexamples where principles produce the wrong results?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gary Johnson takes the un-libertarian position that governments can punish those who exercise their free-will to not participate in something that is against their beliefs. We’re not talking about a physical harm between two parties; we are talking about an exercise of conscience. Here, it is baking a cake specific for a homosexual wedding. It could be any kind of situation where a customer asks a business to engage in something against one’s beliefs. In this light, Austin Petersen rightly makes a comparison about forcing a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi customer. You can see Johnson squirm as his libertarian credentials take a serious hit. Johnson favors punishing who he has a disagreement of conscience over a misguided “progressive” interpretations of discrimination and equality. He ultimately favors empowering the state over the individual. He favors compulsion.

Maybe he just sees the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy.

Or he prefers compulsion over the free market and slavery over liberty. If he is truly libertarian, he'll leave the businessman alone, choose to personally not do business if that's what his conscience dictates, and leave the government out of the equation.

libertarianism: definition of libertarianism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

Definition of “libertarian” | Collins English Dictionary

"a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc"

Definition of LIBERTARIANISM

"a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government"

Three quite different definitions from three dictionaries.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]"

I think I prefer Wikipedia's version.

What is The Libertarian Party?

"Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility."

It's not that much different to what the Libertarians say themselves.

So, it's about liberty which is about not being controlled by the government or others.

However, I'd say, like any right, there are limitations. Many freedoms conflict with other freedoms, many desires of free will conflict with other desires of free will. Who is there to mediate between the two? Should it be a free for all? No, that's Anarchy.

Libertarianism would be maximum freedom for all, which requires government regulation in order to achieve this.

So, I'd say liberty is the ability to walk down the street, go into any public business and conduct business there. If I am denied conducting business the same as everyone else, then I don't have liberty.
If I am denied service in a shop because I am black, or because I am a woman, or because I am gay, or because I have a deformed part of my body, or if I am denied because of something I was born with, then I am not free, I don't have liberty.

anarchy: definition of anarchy in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Anarchy

"A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:"

This is what some people believe is Libertarianism. It's not.

Libertarians believe in maximizing an individual rights, not allowing individual to have absolute freedom. There is a distinction, a balance , between the rights of the individual and society need for order.

The problem with libertarians is thast they have yet to agree on exactly where that point is. This theoretical problem is a source for infighting between libertarians and anarchist.

Yes, SOME libertarians(and most anarchist) believes that individuals have the right to discriminate. However, allowing people to act upon their personal bias greatly undermines society!

That has been demonstrated time and again, from race to religion to nationality. Society suffers due to slow ability for it to become homogenized due to several distinct groups refusing to 'socialize' with each other.

The bakers refusing to bake a cake is a good example.
Is it the same?
1 Christian bakers and gay couple?
2 Jewish bakers and Nazi Org?
3 KKK members that bake and Black couple?
3a Black baker and KKK member
And a special case
4. Iraqi baker and US vet

Why did I add 4? I had seen something similar to this

In my opinion, they all must bake the cake. The libertarian position appears to suggest otherwise, they all can refuse.

But 4, is telling. It should lead you into deeper questions about this little problem.

What is the purpose of society? When rights conflict, what principles should apply to determine who is right or wrong?

What about the counterexamples where principles produce the wrong results?

The point about any of those numbers is a question if businesses being smart rather than anything else.

If bakeries say "we can put anything on our cakes" and then refuse certain people because of this, then there's a problem.

However if bakeries say "we don't normally do this, however we may make exceptional circumstances" then they're going to find it a lot easier.

If a gay couple go to a bakery and get told that "sorry, we don't normally do this for our cakes" then the gay couple aren't going to get offended. However being told that "we're not doing it because you're gay" then this is a problem.

Sometimes it's not what you do or don't do, it's how you carry it out that's the problem.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Gary Johnson takes the un-libertarian position that governments can punish those who exercise their free-will to not participate in something that is against their beliefs. We’re not talking about a physical harm between two parties; we are talking about an exercise of conscience. Here, it is baking a cake specific for a homosexual wedding. It could be any kind of situation where a customer asks a business to engage in something against one’s beliefs. In this light, Austin Petersen rightly makes a comparison about forcing a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi customer. You can see Johnson squirm as his libertarian credentials take a serious hit. Johnson favors punishing who he has a disagreement of conscience over a misguided “progressive” interpretations of discrimination and equality. He ultimately favors empowering the state over the individual. He favors compulsion.

Maybe he just sees the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy.

Jewish bakers don't have to serve Nazis: ANARCHY!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Gary Johnson takes the un-libertarian position that governments can punish those who exercise their free-will to not participate in something that is against their beliefs. We’re not talking about a physical harm between two parties; we are talking about an exercise of conscience. Here, it is baking a cake specific for a homosexual wedding. It could be any kind of situation where a customer asks a business to engage in something against one’s beliefs. In this light, Austin Petersen rightly makes a comparison about forcing a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi customer. You can see Johnson squirm as his libertarian credentials take a serious hit. Johnson favors punishing who he has a disagreement of conscience over a misguided “progressive” interpretations of discrimination and equality. He ultimately favors empowering the state over the individual. He favors compulsion.

Maybe he just sees the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy.

Or he prefers compulsion over the free market and slavery over liberty. If he is truly libertarian, he'll leave the businessman alone, choose to personally not do business if that's what his conscience dictates, and leave the government out of the equation.

libertarianism: definition of libertarianism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

Definition of “libertarian” | Collins English Dictionary

"a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc"

Definition of LIBERTARIANISM

"a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government"

Three quite different definitions from three dictionaries.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]"

I think I prefer Wikipedia's version.

What is The Libertarian Party?

"Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility."

It's not that much different to what the Libertarians say themselves.

So, it's about liberty which is about not being controlled by the government or others.

However, I'd say, like any right, there are limitations. Many freedoms conflict with other freedoms, many desires of free will conflict with other desires of free will. Who is there to mediate between the two? Should it be a free for all? No, that's Anarchy.

Libertarianism would be maximum freedom for all, which requires government regulation in order to achieve this.

So, I'd say liberty is the ability to walk down the street, go into any public business and conduct business there. If I am denied conducting business the same as everyone else, then I don't have liberty.
If I am denied service in a shop because I am black, or because I am a woman, or because I am gay, or because I have a deformed part of my body, or if I am denied because of something I was born with, then I am not free, I don't have liberty.

anarchy: definition of anarchy in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Anarchy

"A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:"

This is what some people believe is Libertarianism. It's not.

Oh, thank goodness. Finally, someone to explain libertarianism to libertarians. We've been lost without you. Your liberty is derived from property rights, that's where the limitations exist. For example, you have the freedom of the press, but it's not an abridgement of your press freedom if the New York Times refuses to publish your op-ed because it's their property. Likewise, if I decide not to serve you in my business it's not an affront to your liberty because it's my property. To force the New York Times to publish your op-ed or to force me to serve you against my will is the affront to liberty, because you're violating property rights. That has nothing to do with anarchy, and everything to do with respecting property rights.

 

[kaz]

Libertarians on Sunday selected former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson as their party's presidential nominee, at their party convention in Orlando, Florida.

Johnson was the party's nominee in 2012 and once again won the position despite backlash from the party's more radical Libertarian wing.

In the first round of voting, Johnson reached 49.5 percent of the vote, according to the official party total, just shy of the majority needed for victory. His nearest opponents, Austin Petersen and John McAfee, reached 21 and 14 percent respectively. On the second round of voting, Johnson clinched the nomination with 55.8 percent of the vote.

Gary Johnson wins Libertarian presidential nomination at party convention - CNNPolitics.com

The Libertarian Party retains its status as a backup plan for failed Republican politicians by nominating Johnson again, and likely nominating Bill Weld for his running mate. At this point, it's time for the Libertarian Party to rebrand since they seem to be more interested in nominating Republican cast-offs than anybody interested in libertarianism.

That sucks. Now I can't support the Libertarians again. They have no integrity. Again ...

"The Party of Principle."

Gary Johnson with deep roots in libertarianism going all the way back to the first time Libertarians nominated him ... four years ago ...

 

[kaz]

Johnson was the worst choice

The three leading contenders were all pretty terrible, frankly.

Agreed. If Gary Woody, I mean Johnson, believed what he says now before he was nominated the Libertarian instead of after, he'd have credibility with me

You guys will get over Ron Paul eventually. Or are you jonesing for the whackier days when our BEST candidates sounded like career conspiracy nuts?? I joined 20 years ago with the expectation is was about governing in the US of A -- not an excercise in philosophy and an attempt to bore the public.

Gotta admit -- school choice, legalized weed, privatization, no wars in Iraq, Bosnia, ---- that drove them off by the busload.

So your advice on getting libertarians elected is to stop being libertarians. Well, that seems rather pointless to me.

What we are is not just an academic exercise. There are governing skills required if you are actually gonna quit debating and run candidates for office. Voters don't want to be prostelytzed. They want to know how you are gonna fix things without tearing it all down and being primmadonna about REBUILDING IT in your image.

We've had mental midgets nominated who believe that marijuana is a PLATFORM. Or that auditing the Fed is some kind of Holy Grail. It's on the freakin' list. The things I listed that we were mocked for are now commonly accepted. But that's not sufficient to dissect and defuse the mighty minions of bureaucrats who are out of control and under no particular supervision right now.

It's a big job. You cannot put a dogmatic zealot with no skills up for election...

Yes, it would help with the stupid oh, Libertarians, you're the ones who want legal weed if the Libertarians would stop focusing on wanting legal weed

 

[The Rabbi]

The Libertarians did the only sensible thing and nominated Gary Johnson for their candidate for president. Johnson is the only reasonable choice in the race. He is a two term governor with a solid record. Does he have plenty of downsides? Of course. But not nearly as many as McCain. And lots of people, including me, voted for McCain.

Johnson was the worst choice

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

 

[sealybobo]

The three leading contenders were all pretty terrible, frankly.

Agreed. If Gary Woody, I mean Johnson, believed what he says now before he was nominated the Libertarian instead of after, he'd have credibility with me

You guys will get over Ron Paul eventually. Or are you jonesing for the whackier days when our BEST candidates sounded like career conspiracy nuts?? I joined 20 years ago with the expectation is was about governing in the US of A -- not an excercise in philosophy and an attempt to bore the public.

Gotta admit -- school choice, legalized weed, privatization, no wars in Iraq, Bosnia, ---- that drove them off by the busload.

So your advice on getting libertarians elected is to stop being libertarians. Well, that seems rather pointless to me.

What we are is not just an academic exercise. There are governing skills required if you are actually gonna quit debating and run candidates for office. Voters don't want to be prostelytzed. They want to know how you are gonna fix things without tearing it all down and being primmadonna about REBUILDING IT in your image.

We've had mental midgets nominated who believe that marijuana is a PLATFORM. Or that auditing the Fed is some kind of Holy Grail. It's on the freakin' list. The things I listed that we were mocked for are now commonly accepted. But that's not sufficient to dissect and defuse the mighty minions of bureaucrats who are out of control and under no particular supervision right now.

It's a big job. You cannot put a dogmatic zealot with no skills up for election...

Yes, it would help with the stupid oh, Libertarians, you're the ones who want legal weed if the Libertarians would stop focusing on wanting legal weed

I'm smoking legal weed right now. So what?

 

[sealybobo]

The Libertarians did the only sensible thing and nominated Gary Johnson for their candidate for president. Johnson is the only reasonable choice in the race. He is a two term governor with a solid record. Does he have plenty of downsides? Of course. But not nearly as many as McCain. And lots of people, including me, voted for McCain.

Johnson was the worst choice

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Ted Cruz?

 

[The Rabbi]

The Libertarians did the only sensible thing and nominated Gary Johnson for their candidate for president. Johnson is the only reasonable choice in the race. He is a two term governor with a solid record. Does he have plenty of downsides? Of course. But not nearly as many as McCain. And lots of people, including me, voted for McCain.

Johnson was the worst choice

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Ted Cruz?

That should have been the GOP choice. But the Party fucked up badly and ended up with Donald. The only good thing about Donald is that he has more integrity than Hillary.

 

[The Rabbi]

Libertarians on Sunday selected former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson as their party's presidential nominee, at their party convention in Orlando, Florida.

Johnson was the party's nominee in 2012 and once again won the position despite backlash from the party's more radical Libertarian wing.

In the first round of voting, Johnson reached 49.5 percent of the vote, according to the official party total, just shy of the majority needed for victory. His nearest opponents, Austin Petersen and John McAfee, reached 21 and 14 percent respectively. On the second round of voting, Johnson clinched the nomination with 55.8 percent of the vote.

Gary Johnson wins Libertarian presidential nomination at party convention - CNNPolitics.com

The Libertarian Party retains its status as a backup plan for failed Republican politicians by nominating Johnson again, and likely nominating Bill Weld for his running mate. At this point, it's time for the Libertarian Party to rebrand since they seem to be more interested in nominating Republican cast-offs than anybody interested in libertarianism.

That sucks. Now I can't support the Libertarians again. They have no integrity. Again ...

"The Party of Principle."

Gary Johnson with deep roots in libertarianism going all the way back to the first time Libertarians nominated him ... four years ago ...

They could have picked a drug addled murdering psycho or a media invention with no real experience.

 

[kaz]

Agreed. If Gary Woody, I mean Johnson, believed what he says now before he was nominated the Libertarian instead of after, he'd have credibility with me

You guys will get over Ron Paul eventually. Or are you jonesing for the whackier days when our BEST candidates sounded like career conspiracy nuts?? I joined 20 years ago with the expectation is was about governing in the US of A -- not an excercise in philosophy and an attempt to bore the public.

Gotta admit -- school choice, legalized weed, privatization, no wars in Iraq, Bosnia, ---- that drove them off by the busload.

So your advice on getting libertarians elected is to stop being libertarians. Well, that seems rather pointless to me.

What we are is not just an academic exercise. There are governing skills required if you are actually gonna quit debating and run candidates for office. Voters don't want to be prostelytzed. They want to know how you are gonna fix things without tearing it all down and being primmadonna about REBUILDING IT in your image.

We've had mental midgets nominated who believe that marijuana is a PLATFORM. Or that auditing the Fed is some kind of Holy Grail. It's on the freakin' list. The things I listed that we were mocked for are now commonly accepted. But that's not sufficient to dissect and defuse the mighty minions of bureaucrats who are out of control and under no particular supervision right now.

It's a big job. You cannot put a dogmatic zealot with no skills up for election...

Yes, it would help with the stupid oh, Libertarians, you're the ones who want legal weed if the Libertarians would stop focusing on wanting legal weed

I'm smoking legal weed right now. So what?

 

[kaz]

The Libertarians did the only sensible thing and nominated Gary Johnson for their candidate for president. Johnson is the only reasonable choice in the race. He is a two term governor with a solid record. Does he have plenty of downsides? Of course. But not nearly as many as McCain. And lots of people, including me, voted for McCain.

Johnson was the worst choice

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Ted Cruz?

Wow, you're on fire today ... I think you are smoking weed

 

[FJO]

Libertarians on Sunday selected former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson as their party's presidential nominee, at their party convention in Orlando, Florida.

Johnson was the party's nominee in 2012 and once again won the position despite backlash from the party's more radical Libertarian wing.

In the first round of voting, Johnson reached 49.5 percent of the vote, according to the official party total, just shy of the majority needed for victory. His nearest opponents, Austin Petersen and John McAfee, reached 21 and 14 percent respectively. On the second round of voting, Johnson clinched the nomination with 55.8 percent of the vote.

Gary Johnson wins Libertarian presidential nomination at party convention - CNNPolitics.com

The Libertarian Party retains its status as a backup plan for failed Republican politicians by nominating Johnson again, and likely nominating Bill Weld for his running mate. At this point, it's time for the Libertarian Party to rebrand since they seem to be more interested in nominating Republican cast-offs than anybody interested in libertarianism.

Libertarians on Sunday selected former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson as their party's presidential nominee, at their party convention in Orlando, Florida.

Johnson was the party's nominee in 2012 and once again won the position despite backlash from the party's more radical Libertarian wing.

In the first round of voting, Johnson reached 49.5 percent of the vote, according to the official party total, just shy of the majority needed for victory. His nearest opponents, Austin Petersen and John McAfee, reached 21 and 14 percent respectively. On the second round of voting, Johnson clinched the nomination with 55.8 percent of the vote.

Gary Johnson wins Libertarian presidential nomination at party convention - CNNPolitics.com

The Libertarian Party retains its status as a backup plan for failed Republican politicians by nominating Johnson again, and likely nominating Bill Weld for his running mate. At this point, it's time for the Libertarian Party to rebrand since they seem to be more interested in nominating Republican cast-offs than anybody interested in libertarianism.

In the famous words of Joe Biden: Big fucking deal.

 

[kaz]

The Libertarians did the only sensible thing and nominated Gary Johnson for their candidate for president. Johnson is the only reasonable choice in the race. He is a two term governor with a solid record. Does he have plenty of downsides? Of course. But not nearly as many as McCain. And lots of people, including me, voted for McCain.

Johnson was the worst choice

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Ted Cruz?

That should have been the GOP choice. But the Party fucked up badly and ended up with Donald. The only good thing about Donald is that he has more integrity than Hillary.

Does he? They both think everyone is stupid and they both lie like shit. He kept lying to Hannity about what he says in his speeches while Hannity was showing clips of what he said

 

[kaz]

Libertarians on Sunday selected former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson as their party's presidential nominee, at their party convention in Orlando, Florida.

Johnson was the party's nominee in 2012 and once again won the position despite backlash from the party's more radical Libertarian wing.

In the first round of voting, Johnson reached 49.5 percent of the vote, according to the official party total, just shy of the majority needed for victory. His nearest opponents, Austin Petersen and John McAfee, reached 21 and 14 percent respectively. On the second round of voting, Johnson clinched the nomination with 55.8 percent of the vote.

Gary Johnson wins Libertarian presidential nomination at party convention - CNNPolitics.com

The Libertarian Party retains its status as a backup plan for failed Republican politicians by nominating Johnson again, and likely nominating Bill Weld for his running mate. At this point, it's time for the Libertarian Party to rebrand since they seem to be more interested in nominating Republican cast-offs than anybody interested in libertarianism.

That sucks. Now I can't support the Libertarians again. They have no integrity. Again ...

"The Party of Principle."

Gary Johnson with deep roots in libertarianism going all the way back to the first time Libertarians nominated him ... four years ago ...

They could have picked a drug addled murdering psycho or a media invention with no real experience.

I wish the Libertarians would stop doing that to me. In 2008 I voted for Ralph Nader. The more I read Johnson's quotes, the more I can't vote for the schmuck

 

[FJO]

Trump 2016 ~ because a vote for this smuck is a vote for Hitlery

A vote for Trump or Hillary is a vote for the status quo, which is stopping there being any change in the way the American people vote, which is a vote for the Republicans and Democrats for them next 100 years.

But then the Republicans and Democrats are the first to use the opposition in order to get people to vote for one of the main parties. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours......

Or, as in the case of Bernie Sanders, you scratch my back, I'll stab yours.

 

[FJO]

Gary Johnson takes the un-libertarian position that governments can punish those who exercise their free-will to not participate in something that is against their beliefs. We’re not talking about a physical harm between two parties; we are talking about an exercise of conscience. Here, it is baking a cake specific for a homosexual wedding. It could be any kind of situation where a customer asks a business to engage in something against one’s beliefs. In this light, Austin Petersen rightly makes a comparison about forcing a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi customer. You can see Johnson squirm as his libertarian credentials take a serious hit. Johnson favors punishing who he has a disagreement of conscience over a misguided “progressive” interpretations of discrimination and equality. He ultimately favors empowering the state over the individual. He favors compulsion.

Maybe he just sees the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy.

Or he prefers compulsion over the free market and slavery over liberty. If he is truly libertarian, he'll leave the businessman alone, choose to personally not do business if that's what his conscience dictates, and leave the government out of the equation.

libertarianism: definition of libertarianism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

Definition of “libertarian” | Collins English Dictionary

"a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc"

Definition of LIBERTARIANISM

"a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government"

Three quite different definitions from three dictionaries.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]"

I think I prefer Wikipedia's version.

What is The Libertarian Party?

"Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility."

It's not that much different to what the Libertarians say themselves.

So, it's about liberty which is about not being controlled by the government or others.

However, I'd say, like any right, there are limitations. Many freedoms conflict with other freedoms, many desires of free will conflict with other desires of free will. Who is there to mediate between the two? Should it be a free for all? No, that's Anarchy.

Libertarianism would be maximum freedom for all, which requires government regulation in order to achieve this.

So, I'd say liberty is the ability to walk down the street, go into any public business and conduct business there. If I am denied conducting business the same as everyone else, then I don't have liberty.
If I am denied service in a shop because I am black, or because I am a woman, or because I am gay, or because I have a deformed part of my body, or if I am denied because of something I was born with, then I am not free, I don't have liberty.

anarchy: definition of anarchy in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Anarchy

"A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:"

This is what some people believe is Libertarianism. It's not.

Libertarians believe in maximizing an individual rights, not allowing individual to have absolute freedom. There is a distinction, a balance , between the rights of the individual and society need for order.

The problem with libertarians is thast they have yet to agree on exactly where that point is. This theoretical problem is a source for infighting between libertarians and anarchist.

Yes, SOME libertarians(and most anarchist) believes that individuals have the right to discriminate. However, allowing people to act upon their personal bias greatly undermines society!

That has been demonstrated time and again, from race to religion to nationality. Society suffers due to slow ability for it to become homogenized due to several distinct groups refusing to 'socialize' with each other.

The bakers refusing to bake a cake is a good example.
Is it the same?
1 Christian bakers and gay couple?
2 Jewish bakers and Nazi Org?
3 KKK members that bake and Black couple?
3a Black baker and KKK member
And a special case
4. Iraqi baker and US vet

Why did I add 4? I had seen something similar to this

In my opinion, they all must bake the cake. The libertarian position appears to suggest otherwise, they all can refuse.

But 4, is telling. It should lead you into deeper questions about this little problem.

What is the purpose of society? When rights conflict, what principles should apply to determine who is right or wrong?

What about the counterexamples where principles produce the wrong results?

They all must have the right to serve whoever the hell they want to serve. For the complaining malcontents: There is another baker who would be happy to take your business. Go to them and shut the hell up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gary Johnson takes the un-libertarian position that governments can punish those who exercise their free-will to not participate in something that is against their beliefs. We’re not talking about a physical harm between two parties; we are talking about an exercise of conscience. Here, it is baking a cake specific for a homosexual wedding. It could be any kind of situation where a customer asks a business to engage in something against one’s beliefs. In this light, Austin Petersen rightly makes a comparison about forcing a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi customer. You can see Johnson squirm as his libertarian credentials take a serious hit. Johnson favors punishing who he has a disagreement of conscience over a misguided “progressive” interpretations of discrimination and equality. He ultimately favors empowering the state over the individual. He favors compulsion.

Maybe he just sees the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy.

Or he prefers compulsion over the free market and slavery over liberty. If he is truly libertarian, he'll leave the businessman alone, choose to personally not do business if that's what his conscience dictates, and leave the government out of the equation.

libertarianism: definition of libertarianism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

Definition of “libertarian” | Collins English Dictionary

"a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc"

Definition of LIBERTARIANISM

"a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government"

Three quite different definitions from three dictionaries.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]"

I think I prefer Wikipedia's version.

What is The Libertarian Party?

"Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility."

It's not that much different to what the Libertarians say themselves.

So, it's about liberty which is about not being controlled by the government or others.

However, I'd say, like any right, there are limitations. Many freedoms conflict with other freedoms, many desires of free will conflict with other desires of free will. Who is there to mediate between the two? Should it be a free for all? No, that's Anarchy.

Libertarianism would be maximum freedom for all, which requires government regulation in order to achieve this.

So, I'd say liberty is the ability to walk down the street, go into any public business and conduct business there. If I am denied conducting business the same as everyone else, then I don't have liberty.
If I am denied service in a shop because I am black, or because I am a woman, or because I am gay, or because I have a deformed part of my body, or if I am denied because of something I was born with, then I am not free, I don't have liberty.

anarchy: definition of anarchy in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Anarchy

"A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:"

This is what some people believe is Libertarianism. It's not.

Oh, thank goodness. Finally, someone to explain libertarianism to libertarians. We've been lost without you. Your liberty is derived from property rights, that's where the limitations exist. For example, you have the freedom of the press, but it's not an abridgement of your press freedom if the New York Times refuses to publish your op-ed because it's their property. Likewise, if I decide not to serve you in my business it's not an affront to your liberty because it's my property. To force the New York Times to publish your op-ed or to force me to serve you against my will is the affront to liberty, because you're violating property rights. That has nothing to do with anarchy, and everything to do with respecting property rights.

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Libertarians did the only sensible thing and nominated Gary Johnson for their candidate for president. Johnson is the only reasonable choice in the race. He is a two term governor with a solid record. Does he have plenty of downsides? Of course. But not nearly as many as McCain. And lots of people, including me, voted for McCain.

Johnson was the worst choice

Yes they could have picked a drug addict psychotic murderer who had to flee his expat country.

Yeah, but only a someone with the IQ of a fishbowl could support Gary Johnson, am I right?

Gary Johnson is a loser. Only those with an IQ of a fishbowl would want to vote for him.