The Gary Johnson thread

[Tidewater]

I just don't understand what affirmative action has to do with the subject being discussed, save somewhere far out there tangentially.

My post was a response to Jon making the sarcastic comment that "racism doesn't exist any more," which is irrelevant to the Johnson discussion. Affirmative Action (government mandated racial discrimination in favor of a preferred group) was not supposed to remain until racism "didn't exist any more." Affirmative Action was intended to show job hirers and other decision-makers that African Americans can in fact compete when given a chance.

 

[Jon]

My post was a response to Jon making the sarcastic comment that "racism doesn't exist any more," which is irrelevant to the Johnson discussion. Affirmative Action (government mandated racial discrimination in favor of a preferred group) was not supposed to remain until racism "didn't exist any more." Affirmative Action was intended to show job hirers and other decision-makers that African Americans can in fact compete when given a chance.

I didn't respond to you because I can't for the life of me understand how you could hear Johnson's comment and feel that the sarcastic comment that "racism doesn't exist any more," was irrelevant. Johnson was saying "my eyes have been opened" to the racism that exists still..... What did you hear?

 

[Tide1986]

I didn't respond to you because I can't for the life of me understand how you could hear Johnson's comment and feel that the sarcastic comment that "racism doesn't exist any more," was irrelevant. Johnson was saying "my eyes have been opened" to the racism that exists still..... What did you hear?

What does Johnson have to gain by denying any substantive level of racism? What does he have to gain by accepting a substantive level of racism? I'm skeptical of a genuine opening of his eyes, except to the political opportunities.

 

[NationalTitles18]

What does Johnson have to gain by denying any substantive level of racism? What does he have to gain by accepting a substantive level of racism? I'm skeptical of a genuine opening of his eyes, except to the political opportunities.

Skepticism is always warranted, but cynicism isn't really helpful. I'm not really sure which one is occurring right now. I can understand where Johnson is coming from because my eyes have opened a lot over the past few years, and so maybe I'm more apt to believe him. I should probably be more skeptical myself. Regardless, he isn't promising the world like some other people. He's talking about criminal justice reform.

 

[Tidewater]

I didn't respond to you because I can't for the life of me understand how you could hear Johnson's comment and feel that the sarcastic comment that "racism doesn't exist any more," was irrelevant. Johnson was saying "my eyes have been opened" to the racism that exists still..... What did you hear?

I liked Wells' response more than Johnson's
I despise racial prejudice wherever it occurs, and regardless of who benefits.

Johnson's response to the BLM question smacked of pandering.
I believe that proper response is that the law should be enforced, regardless of the race of the offenders. If that is cops, so be it. If that is people threatening cops, so be it.

 

[Tide1986]

Skepticism is always warranted, but cynicism isn't really helpful. I'm not really sure which one is occurring right now. I can understand where Johnson is coming from because my eyes have opened a lot over the past few years, and so maybe I'm more apt to believe him. I should probably be more skeptical myself. Regardless, he isn't promising the world like some other people. He's talking about criminal justice reform.

Some level of criminal justice reform seems like a good idea. Will reform change the ratios meaningfully? To the point where no one will cry, "Discrimination!"

 

[NationalTitles18]

Good article on the basic tenets of libertarianism. You'll find that these key concepts align very closely with the framers of the constitution (who were, by and large, classical liberals) and the document itself (though far from perfectly, given the reality if the day - but that's like criticizing the Magna Carta because it did not give power and protection to serfs - it was still a step in the right direction and served as a foundation for subsequent advances).
Libertarianism is not some crazy whacky new idea. It is a return to the roots of the best side of our constitutional democratic republic. Frankly, IMHO, it represents the best parts that have been "co-opted" by the two major parties without all of the baggage those parties bring to the table.
Still, libertarianism seems to often be misunderstood - even seemingly by some who espouse it - for anarchy. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that's how many people see it. While ideally no one would need government at all, that's not reality. Libertarians want the least restrictions necessary for a civil society. That's actually the same thing Republicans say they want, but have often failed to deliver. No use even talking about Democrats and unnecessary regulations.
Gary Johnson is human, and I don't always agree with him. Sometimes he strays he "true libertarianism". He recently screwed up royally talking about the conflict between gay rights and religious rights, but he struck the right balance at the town hall on CNN. He also apologized for a gaffe regarding Mormons on the same issue and even remarked that Utah has provided the roadmap on how to handle the issue. I happen to agree with that as it strikes the right balance between conflicting rights and offers somewhere near the least government restrictions needed to reasonably achieve that goal.



http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism

The key concepts of libertarianism have developed over many centuries. The first inklings of them can be found in ancient China, Greece, and Israel; they began to be developed into something resembling modern libertarian philosophy in the work of such seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thinkers as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine.

Individualism

Individual Rights

Spontaneous Order

The Rule of Law

Limited Government

Free Markets

The Virtue of Production

Natural Harmony of Interests.

Peace

Now, I will be the first to admit that some of these concepts are pollyannish at best and at worst ignore the worst lessons in history. For instance, spontaneous order and the natural harmony of interests sometimes don't work out as planned since there are always deceitful and fraudulent people. But the philosophy of libertarianism accounts for this knowing that government is needed to prevent and/or punish those bad actors. Johnson has been criticized by some for wanting too much government interference and being too open to some regulations. Personally, I lean more to his side and would go further on some issues. There are schisms even within libertarianism on a number of issues, but the general agreement still leans toward least restrictive means.
But this post is less about Johnson than laying out what his party more or less represents and the philosophy behind it, that philosophy including limited and enumerated government powers, maximum individual freedom (even for things you don't agree with), free markets, and the like.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Some level of criminal justice reform seems like a good idea. Will reform change the ratios meaningfully? To the point where no one will cry, "Discrimination!"

There will always be someone who cries whether something exists or not. I don't think that's a good measure. As to whether reforms will change the ratios I can only say "that depends on the reforms".

For instance, some of our drug laws intentionally treat cocaine differently than crack even though they are close to the same. But one is used more by rich suburban whites and the other is used more by poor urban blacks. But get caught with crack and the sentence is much worse. A simple reform would be to make the sentences more similar. Johnson wants to go further and instead or throwing either in jail treat it as a pubic health problem. Given the monumental failure of criminal prohibition and all the gangs that grew out of it (much like alcohol prohibition) and all the contentious police interactions as a result of the whole thing, it seems reasonable that at least de-emphasizing the criminal justice aspect of drugs would produce fewer inner city deaths, fewer contentious and potentially deadly interactions with and against police, as well as fewer encroachments on civil liberties that have occurred as a result of ratcheting up government actions whenever the previous ratcheting up proves yet again to be just as much a failure as the last time it happened. Making it a public health issue would mean more treatment and fewer overdose deaths. Less gang activity. Less money spent locking up nonviolent people for years of mandatory sentences and all the expense that comes with it. A simple reform like this even though it is wildly unpopular would take care of 90% of the concerns of the black community regarding safety (gangs) and police interactions. if drugs and especially inner city drugs and those who use them are no longer the enemies then there will be fewer interaction during which something can go wrong. End the war on drugs and inner cities may no longer feel like war zones. That in large part takes care of the criminal justice side, but still leaves the economic side, which is far more complex. It also doesn't address all police overreach or the "war" or "military" mentality too many police departments have adopted or other issues that could and need to be addressed (treatment of prisoners, etc,...)

 

[Tide1986]

There will always be someone who cries whether something exists or not. I don't think that's a good measure. As to whether reforms will change the ratios I can only say "that depends on the reforms".

For instance, some of our drug laws intentionally treat cocaine differently than crack even though they are close to the same. But one is used more by rich suburban whites and the other is used more by poor urban blacks. But get caught with crack and the sentence is much worse. A simple reform would be to make the sentences more similar. Johnson wants to go further and instead or throwing either in jail treat it as a pubic health problem. Given the monumental failure of criminal prohibition and all the gangs that grew out of it (much like alcohol prohibition) and all the contentious police interactions as a result of the whole thing, it seems reasonable that at least de-emphasizing the criminal justice aspect of drugs would produce fewer inner city deaths, fewer contentious and potentially deadly interactions with and against police, as well as fewer encroachments on civil liberties that have occurred as a result of ratcheting up government actions whenever the previous ratcheting up proves yet again to be just as much a failure as the last time it happened. Making it a public health issue would mean more treatment and fewer overdose deaths. Less gang activity. Less money spent locking up nonviolent people for years of mandatory sentences and all the expense that comes with it. A simple reform like this even though it is wildly unpopular would take care of 90% of the concerns of the black community regarding safety (gangs) and police interactions. if drugs and especially inner city drugs and those who use them are no longer the enemies then there will be fewer interaction during which something can go wrong. End the war on drugs and inner cities may no longer feel like war zones. That in large part takes care of the criminal justice side, but still leaves the economic side, which is far more complex. It also doesn't address all police overreach or the "war" or "military" mentality too many police departments have adopted or other issues that could and need to be addressed (treatment of prisoners, etc,...)

Deeming something like drug abuse a "public health issue" seems quite unlibertarian.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Deeming something like drug abuse a "public health issue" seems quite unlibertarian.

According to whom? Handling it at the federal level is not being advocated. Johnson wants the states to handle it. The 10th amendment is quite amenable to this approach.

 

[Tide1986]

According to whom? Handling it at the federal level is not being advocated. Johnson wants the states to handle it. The 10th amendment is quite amenable to this approach.

Public accountability for individual choices is quite unlibertarian.

 

[Jon]

Deeming something like drug abuse a "public health issue" seems quite unlibertarian.

no it doesn't

 

[Tide1986]

no it doesn't

You can't have it both ways. Freedom to use drugs and then turning abuse and addiction into the responsibility of the public. That is textbook unlibertarian. But I get it. It's the liberal way to have one's cake and eat it too.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Public accountability for individual choices is quite unlibertarian.

You can't have it both ways. Freedom to use drugs and then turning abuse and addiction into the responsibility of the public. That is textbook unlibertarian. But I get it. It's the liberal way to have one's cake and eat it too.

1. The government has already turned abuse and addiction into the responsibility of the public. We are already using public funds for "treatment", but the "treatment" mostly consists of locking people up and paying for all their needs for years on end. We also often end up paying for their family's welfare. Hardly a cost-effective approach. Add to that all the police resources spent on a lost "war".

2. Treating it as a public health issue does not mean the public has to pay for it, especially at the federal level. Purists will surely oppose any government funds for treatment, thought some might be more accepting if that occurred on the state or local level. Pragmatists realize that this would be a vast improvement over the system we have in place no matter who pays for it. Also there is nothing preventing the government from forcing people to pay for their own treatment when their behavior has caused them to come before the court for other matters and treatment is needed. There is also no intrinsic requirement that treating it as a public health issue means vast sums of money must be spent on it and any pragmatist understands that overall vast sums of money would still be saved even if the public was on the hook for treatment. IOW, it's a move in the right direction.

 

[Tide1986]

2. Treating it as a public health issue does not mean the public has to pay for it, especially at the federal level. Purists will surely oppose any government funds for treatment, thought some might be more accepting if that occurred on the state or local level. Pragmatists realize that this would be a vast improvement over the system we have in place no matter who pays for it.

I have no issue if a local community chooses to provide treatment for drug abuse. I also have no issue if a local community leaves the abusers to their own devices...assuming they don't harm or otherwise impact others in the process.

 

[Bamaro]

SIAP
[video]http://www.hulu.com/watch/968384[/video]
:iagree:

 

[NationalTitles18]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/9/inside-the-beltway-gary-johnson-a-hot-media-proper/

[FONT=&quot]The pair are now in demand, earning heroic features in such publications as People magazine and The New York Times. All-important Google searches on Mr. Johnson in particular have increased hundredfold since April, the search engine reported. And later this month, the Fox Business Network will broadcast a Libertarian town hall with the two candidates, hosted by [/FONT]John Stossel [FONT=&quot]and set to hammer on the major differences between the Libertarian, Republican and Democratic platforms, along with economic, social and defense issues. This is the network’s second town hall for the hopefuls, and will feature a live audience, voter questions and much social media....
[/FONT]...[FONT=&quot]Will the Johnson campaign get its wish? Politico and other news organizations report that the Presidential Debate Commission is now advising sites that will host the bouts to be prepared for the possibility that a third combatant might join Mr. Trump and Democratic nominee [/FONT]Hillary Clinton [FONT=&quot]on that giant stage, and before a humongous audience.[/FONT]

August 26 will be the Fox Business Town Hall. Interesting development on the PDC's preparations. Rumors abound on one or more big name endorsements later this month, but so far nothing to hang your hat on there. The right endorsement(s) could change the entire landscape. As hopeful as I am, I'll believe it when I see it.

On a side note, would it be too much ask someone to add the 2016 Election tag to the thread title to make it a little easier to find?

 

[NationalTitles18]

Politico has a long article up entitled Gary Johnson Has a Plan: On the road with the Libertarian candidate who thinks he can upend this year’s election.

I won't link due to a few choice words, but it's a tag-along reporter on the campaign trail with Johnson. Interesting bits to me were the Paul encounter and Johnson's relationships with his wife and now his girlfriend.

 

[NationalTitles18]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/libe...idates-dont-address-entitlement-spending.html

[FONT=&quot]Entitlements and pension funding are huge issues that no one seems to be addressing right now, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson said Thursday.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The former New Mexico governor and his running mate, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, have pledged to submit a balanced budget to Congress in the first 100 days of their administration should they win in November.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Military spending would also see cuts under a Johnson administration. He said that would not necessarily compromise the national defense, citing Pentagon assessments that bases could be closed with little impact on military effectiveness.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]He suggested a 20 percent reduction in military spending, and the same decrease in bases at home and overseas.[/FONT]

 

[NationalTitles18]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...-libertarian-gary-johnson-must-be-included-in

Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party nominee for president who founded a highly successful business, served for two highly regarded terms as a Republican governor of New Mexico, became a nationally respected voice for the libertarian philosophy, named a former successful Republican governor of Massachusetts as his running mate, has his name on the ballot in all 50 states, will probably poll between 10 and 15 percent of voters before the debates begin, and should be included in presidential debates alongside Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and GOP nominee Donald Trump.The presidential debates should offer the American people an opportunity to evaluate the candidates for president and make an informed choice about the future direction of the nation. The debate commission should respect the two-party system, but should not be used as a vehicle for stifling dissent and silencing voices when many voters conclude the two-party system makes them choose the "lesser of two evils."