Johnson / Weld

[funinspace]

There appears to be no point in an actual libertarian commenting in this thread.

Why not? Is there nothing you have to add to the question of why my friend thinks the Libertarian party is a good choice? Nothing to correct in my impression of them from their list of issues on their web page?


Out of curiosity, when YOU read Johnson/Weld's web page and their list of issues, do YOU think they are Libertarians?
Do you think they are a good example of Libertarians??

Sadly, Johnson is probably one of the better ones. The page listing is generally a fair representation of libertarian talking points.

Do you like their issues list?

I’m generally fine with the comments on drugs, abortion, internet freedom & security, foreign policy & national defense, and personal freedom/rights. I don’t think Johnson would be “just like Obama”, but would be more restrained in us of US power abroad (aka Libya and Syria).

I’d have to read more on his opinions on Immigration to know whether or not I’d be in his camp, but it is certainly more rational than the Repugs. The “criminal justice” section is pretty fuzzy, but obviously the war on drugs is a big part of it. The rest is mostly a mixture of fantasy and/or mumbo jumbo.

Which Libertarian would you like to see as your nominee?

The first edition of Steve Forbes could have been pretty close…after that nothing comes to mind.

Will you be voting for Johnson Weld?

If I decide that Hillary is quite safe to win my state, then I might continue my vote against the Democins and Republocrat status quo.
Previous votes:
84 Reagan
88 Bush
92 LP (I think)
96 LP
00 LP
04 Kerry
08 Obama
12 LP

Keeping this very short: With the worst financial mess since the depression, the Banksters were pretty much given a hand slap instead of felony charges. We have the worst of both worlds. Banks are protected by the government, but are not held accountable or responsible for their screw ups. Pres. Obama appointed a groups of great defense lawyers to the DoJ. And even worse, was that the opposition party remained completely silent on the protection racket, quietly approving one thing Obama was doing. There was no equivalent of Dr. William Black (from the S&L crisis prosecution) brought in. Hillary was second only to Jeb Bush (at least last fall when I read it last) in attracting WS money…

SS: I’d drop the cap on FICA taxes, and let the CEO’s help out. I’d raise the early retirement, probably to 64. I’d exclude the first $10,000 of income from FICA taxes. Benefit formulas would be unchanged. The “carried interest” loophole would be ended.

 

[jonatha]

SS: I’d drop the cap on FICA taxes

That sounds like a remarkably libertarian position.

If you hadn't inserted the words "the cap on"

 

[SimpleDon]

Why not? Is there nothing you have to add to the question of why my friend thinks the Libertarian party is a good choice? Nothing to correct in my impression of them from their list of issues on their web page?


Out of curiosity, when YOU read Johnson/Weld's web page and their list of issues, do YOU think they are Libertarians?
Do you think they are a good example of Libertarians??

Sadly, Johnson is probably one of the better ones. The page listing is generally a fair representation of libertarian talking points.

Do you like their issues list?

I’m generally fine with the comments on drugs, abortion, internet freedom & security, foreign policy & national defense, and personal freedom/rights. I don’t think Johnson would be “just like Obama”, but would be more restrained in us of US power abroad (aka Libya and Syria).

I’d have to read more on his opinions on Immigration to know whether or not I’d be in his camp, but it is certainly more rational than the Repugs. The “criminal justice” section is pretty fuzzy, but obviously the war on drugs is a big part of it. The rest is mostly a mixture of fantasy and/or mumbo jumbo.

Which Libertarian would you like to see as your nominee?

The first edition of Steve Forbes could have been pretty close…after that nothing comes to mind.

Will you be voting for Johnson Weld?

If I decide that Hillary is quite safe to win my state, then I might continue my vote against the Democins and Republocrat status quo.
Previous votes:
84 Reagan
88 Bush
92 LP (I think)
96 LP
00 LP
04 Kerry
08 Obama
12 LP

Keeping this very short: With the worst financial mess since the depression, the Banksters were pretty much given a hand slap instead of felony charges. We have the worst of both worlds. Banks are protected by the government, but are not held accountable or responsible for their screw ups. Pres. Obama appointed a groups of great defense lawyers to the DoJ. And even worse, was that the opposition party remained completely silent on the protection racket, quietly approving one thing Obama was doing. There was no equivalent of Dr. William Black (from the S&L crisis prosecution) brought in. Hillary was second only to Jeb Bush (at least last fall when I read it last) in attracting WS money…

SS: I’d drop the cap on FICA taxes, and let the CEO’s help out. I’d raise the early retirement, probably to 64. I’d exclude the first $10,000 of income from FICA taxes. Benefit formulas would be unchanged. The “carried interest” loophole would be ended.

So you are saying that the libertarians could be a viable party if they abandoned their libertarian philosophy. I agree, but I can't imagine that the libertarians would do that. That they, in essence, would have to be willing to become the joke that they are nothing but Republicans who smoke dope or are gay.

I can't imagine voting for libertarians if I didn't agree with their philosophy and the consequences of that philosophy. It is the libertarian philosophy of slim government and dedication to deregulation, actually to the failure to regulate, and to minimum government interference in the fantasy of the self-regulating free market that allowed the financial misbehavior that caused the financial crisis of 2008. I think that Bill Black would agree with that.

The question of a bank bailout as moral hazard versus the more morally satisfying alternatives of letting the banks go bankrupt and having the FDIC take them over wasn't decided on those moral questions but strictly on the question of what was the most expeditious. It was felt that there wasn't the time to let the more satisfying alternatives take place before we slid into a more serious full blown depression. Shoring up the banks had the sole virtue of being the fastest acting option.

Besides this the administration that decided to bailout the banks, the Bush administration not the Obama administration, was one that was fully steeped in the libertarian type beliefs in free markets, deregulation and the incompetence of government.

It is disingenuous of you and Bill Black to blame the lack of convictions of the bankers and others that caused the Great Financial Crisis on the Department of Justice. Almost the very first thing the 1995 newly elected, Republican Congress did upon taking office, and signed by male Clinton, was to change the laws that Bill Black had obtained those banksters from the S&L crisis, the bellwether, but unheeded warning against the libertarian idea of deregulation. Instead, the Republican idea of a corporation as a responsible person was substituted for executive personal responsibility. And you can't send a corporation to prison, you can only fine it. Which the DoJ did do. The DoJ defense lawyers, as you unfairly characterized them, have to work with the laws in place at the time that the crime was committed.

 

[SimpleDon]

Sadly, Johnson is probably one of the better ones. The page listing is generally a fair representation of libertarian talking points.

Do you like their issues list?

I’m generally fine with the comments on drugs, abortion, internet freedom & security, foreign policy & national defense, and personal freedom/rights....

I re-read your post as a part of reading mine above and realized that you are supportive of the libertarian philosophy. Rather than the editing that would be required to correct the post that I had already submitted I am writing this. Please excuse my lack of comprehension.

The problem with this platform is the same with all political platforms to some degree, the are big on what and kind of thin on how and to what degree. For example, I agree that our drug laws and the war on drugs are a problem, but I am afraid that the libertarians want to legalize currently illegal drugs to avoid the problems. And to do away with the regulations that require prescriptions for legal but powerful drugs. Or with the FDA and the regulation of currently legal drugs. And when I ask these questions I am told that libertarians don't do planning. Or that libertarians are against government regulations in general but of course, we need the FDA, but a privatized version, as if this made any sense.

 

[funinspace]

Sadly, Johnson is probably one of the better ones. The page listing is generally a fair representation of libertarian talking points.


I’m generally fine with the comments on drugs, abortion, internet freedom & security, foreign policy & national defense, and personal freedom/rights....

I re-read your post as a part of reading mine above and realized that you are supportive of the libertarian philosophy. Rather than the editing that would be required to correct the post that I had already submitted I am writing this. Please excuse my lack of comprehension.

NP...and FWIW that is a soft supportiveness of libertarian philosophy. I'd say the only thing worse than a political platform, is a rigid ideology... After all, I like to think of myself as supporting green things, yet I don't argue to kill all the humans.

The problem with this platform is the same with all political platforms to some degree, the are big on what and kind of thin on how and to what degree. For example, I agree that our drug laws and the war on drugs are a problem, but I am afraid that the libertarians want to legalize currently illegal drugs to avoid the problems. And to do away with the regulations that require prescriptions for legal but powerful drugs. Or with the FDA and the regulation of currently legal drugs. And when I ask these questions I am told that libertarians don't do planning. Or that libertarians are against government regulations in general but of course, we need the FDA, but a privatized version, as if this made any sense.

I'd be fine with something along the lines of Portugal's recreational drug law reforms circa 2001. If I were Emperor FiS, I'd even keep the FDA as a govt. agency continuing all sorts of nefarious rule making. Though I might tell them to lighten up on the pseudoephedrine rules. Oh, and to the DEA: You're fired

 

[SimpleDon]

I re-read your post as a part of reading mine above and realized that you are supportive of the libertarian philosophy. Rather than the editing that would be required to correct the post that I had already submitted I am writing this. Please excuse my lack of comprehension.

NP...and FWIW that is a soft supportiveness of libertarian philosophy. I'd say the only thing worse than a political platform, is a rigid ideology... After all, I like to think of myself as supporting green things, yet I don't argue to kill all the humans.

The problem with this platform is the same with all political platforms to some degree, the are big on what and kind of thin on how and to what degree. For example, I agree that our drug laws and the war on drugs are a problem, but I am afraid that the libertarians want to legalize currently illegal drugs to avoid the problems. And to do away with the regulations that require prescriptions for legal but powerful drugs. Or with the FDA and the regulation of currently legal drugs. And when I ask these questions I am told that libertarians don't do planning. Or that libertarians are against government regulations in general but of course, we need the FDA, but a privatized version, as if this made any sense.

I'd be fine with something along the lines of Portugal's recreational drug law reforms circa 2001. If I were Emperor FiS, I'd even keep the FDA as a govt. agency continuing all sorts of nefarious rule making. Though I might tell them to lighten up on the pseudoephedrine rules. Oh, and to the DEA: You're fired

This is what I see as the problem with the libertarian philosophy. They say in their philosophy that they want to maximize individual freedoms. You want to decriminalize recreational drugs but presumably, still restrict my individual freedom to buy dangerous illegal drugs and powerful legal drugs without a prescription from a doctor.

Are you then maximizing individual freedom? No, you aren't. You are just tinkering slightly with the same policies that we have right now. Are you a libertarian? I suppose that you can call yourself one, but you certainly aren't making any real change toward the stated libertarian philosophy.

When libertarians talk about their philosophy they are firebreathing, anarchist revolutionaries. That is, fire the DEA. But when discussing the practical applications of their philosophy they back off, into, well, the joke of being nothing more than Republicans who smoke recreational drugs. If you are going to keep dangerous drugs illegal then how do you get rid of the DEA and the prisons?

I am reading about the origins of the neoliberal political philosophy that created many of the problems that we have today and yet is still so dominant now. Libertarians are an integral part of the neoliberal movement, Hayek (along with Milton Friedman) founded it. They provide the theoretical basis of neoliberalism, that is, free trade, the self-regulating free market, the primacy of individual action compared to collective action, the destructive nature of government intervention in the economy, etc. Without the libertarian theories neoliberalism is nothing but the government should intervene in the economy to boost the incomes of the wealthy at the cost of everyone else, i.e. a class war.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is what I see as the problem with the libertarian philosophy. They say in their philosophy that they want to maximize individual freedoms. You want to decriminalize recreational drugs but presumably, still restrict my individual freedom to buy dangerous illegal drugs and powerful legal drugs without a prescription from a doctor.

Uh ... what? My commitment to ending the drug war includes descheduling everything because the very act of keeping things behind a prescription is a vital part of the drug war. I think your comment is a straw man version of libertarianism. People want an example of what I mean when I say the board's definition isn't the same as the real thing. Here is an example. "Libertarians want to legalize pot but keep other drugs severely restricted."

When libertarians talk about their philosophy they are firebreathing, anarchist revolutionaries. That is, fire the DEA. But when discussing the practical applications of their philosophy they back off, into, well, the joke of being nothing more than Republicans who smoke recreational drugs. If you are going to keep dangerous drugs illegal then how do you get rid of the DEA and the prisons?

Exactly, the difference between how libertarianism is defined on this board versus how it is actually defined.

I am reading about the origins of the neoliberal political philosophy that created many of the problems that we have today and yet is still so dominant now. Libertarians are an integral part of the neoliberal movement, Hayek (along with Milton Friedman) founded it. They provide the theoretical basis of neoliberalism, that is, free trade, the self-regulating free market, the primacy of individual action compared to collective action, the destructive nature of government intervention in the economy, etc. Without the libertarian theories neoliberalism is nothing but the government should intervene in the economy to boost the incomes of the wealthy at the cost of everyone else, i.e. a class war.

Friedman is an interesting case. He was right about some things, wrong about others, and couldn't shut up about the things he was wrong about. He was a monetarist and not a capitalist (not that most people here can tell the difference).

 

[Rhea]

Does Johnson/Weld share your goal of descheduling all drugs?

 

[laughing dog]

He was a monetarist and not a capitalist (not that most people here can tell the difference).

Ah, the "No True Capitalist" fallacy.

 

[J842P]

A friend has expressed enthusiasm for Johnson/Weld.

I'm not so convinced.

https://johnsonweld.com/issues/

He's quick to glom onto the divisiveness bandwagon and blame Obama for things that Bush did. So he's not being honest about issues.

He claims the tax code discourages savings and investment, yet my income from savings and investment is taxed more lightly than my income from being an actual productive worker. And therefore needs to be scrapped and we only tax spending. Not corporate spending, of course, just consumer spending.

He thinks Texas is doing a GREAT job of adequately educating kids, same as New Mexico and they shouldn't face interference from any gosh-darn standards. In fact, scrap the Dept of Ed. Just let the states do that.

He thinks the invisible hand of the free market will solve global warming if we just let everyone have choices. Quote, "In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators and personal choices will ultimately bring about the environmental restoration and protection society desires. "

On foreign policy he seems to say he wants to be just like Obama, but his result will be better, because, Obama. Also, build back yard bunkers.



His issues page is so sparse and shallow one can not trust what will actually happen.

He seems like a moderate Libertarian. Not really surprising that he holds these positions running on the Libertarian ticket.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't the Libertarian Party basically where washed up republican politicians go to fade into oblivion?

What absolutely blows me away is how many Bernie supporters are talking about voting Libertarian.

Yeah. That really doesn't make any sense. It makes less sense than voting for Trump.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

He was a monetarist and not a capitalist (not that most people here can tell the difference).

Ah, the "No True Capitalist" fallacy.

Government control of the money supply is the same as government not controlling the money supply?

I was right, you can't tell the difference. Thank you for demonstrating that I was right.

 

[laughing dog]

Ah, the "No True Capitalist" fallacy.

Government control of the money supply is the same as government not controlling the money supply?

I was right, you can't tell the difference. Thank you for demonstrating that I was right.

I am surprised that someone who claims to be literate and who reads the dictionary as you do can babble such nonsense and be expected to be taken seriously. There is nothing inconsistent with capitalism and monetarism under the normal understandings of the terms. But please, continue showing that "libertarians" are delusional.

 

[funinspace]

NP...and FWIW that is a soft supportiveness of libertarian philosophy. I'd say the only thing worse than a political platform, is a rigid ideology... After all, I like to think of myself as supporting green things, yet I don't argue to kill all the humans.

The problem with this platform is the same with all political platforms to some degree, the are big on what and kind of thin on how and to what degree. For example, I agree that our drug laws and the war on drugs are a problem, but I am afraid that the libertarians want to legalize currently illegal drugs to avoid the problems. And to do away with the regulations that require prescriptions for legal but powerful drugs. Or with the FDA and the regulation of currently legal drugs. And when I ask these questions I am told that libertarians don't do planning. Or that libertarians are against government regulations in general but of course, we need the FDA, but a privatized version, as if this made any sense.

I'd be fine with something along the lines of Portugal's recreational drug law reforms circa 2001. If I were Emperor FiS, I'd even keep the FDA as a govt. agency continuing all sorts of nefarious rule making. Though I might tell them to lighten up on the pseudoephedrine rules. Oh, and to the DEA: You're fired

This is what I see as the problem with the libertarian philosophy. They say in their philosophy that they want to maximize individual freedoms. You want to decriminalize recreational drugs but presumably, still restrict my individual freedom to buy dangerous illegal drugs and powerful legal drugs without a prescription from a doctor.

My comment about pseudoephedrine should have been a clue. Sure, I'd probably want the FDA to lighten up somewhat on prescription rules. Rules against widespread antibiotic abuse seems to support notions of general welfare. At the same time, I don't think I'd arrest/jail some slob who illegally bought an antibiotic. It sounds like restrictions on birth control drugs are probably overdone. But then medicine isn't my specialty, so I'd either need to read a lot more, or rely upon some experts before having a strong opinions on specific details.

Are you then maximizing individual freedom? No, you aren't. You are just tinkering slightly with the same policies that we have right now. Are you a libertarian? I suppose that you can call yourself one, but you certainly aren't making any real change toward the stated libertarian philosophy.

I am generally for maximizing individual freedom, but certainly not without considering other impacts. Am I a libertarian? It is just a word. You seem to be a bit of an ideologue, or that could be just against this particular word you seem to loath...

When libertarians talk about their philosophy they are firebreathing, anarchist revolutionaries. That is, fire the DEA. But when discussing the practical applications of their philosophy they back off, into, well, the joke of being nothing more than Republicans who smoke recreational drugs. If you are going to keep dangerous drugs illegal then how do you get rid of the DEA and the prisons?

That's nice....though I have never used an illegal drug, nor the now legal marijuana. Who said anything about getting rid of prisons? I find anarchists to be about as libertarian, as people who say they are environmentalists who think human civilization is an evil environmental problem. In fact, I probably have more in common with the Democrats than the Repugs at this point, if one were to use a ledger for comparing talking points. I do not support the supersized military complex (yet I still think we need a military), nor did I ever support the invasion of Iraq, nor the bombing of Libya, nor the destabilization of Syria. I did not think the nation building in Afghanistan was ever going to work, and was a stupid plan. Though I didn't mind the idea of a punitive short term operation against the Afghan Taliban and its supported Al Qaeda after 9/11. I do not support our supersized internal/external state spying operations, yet we still need a CIA. I do/did not support the various iterations of the Patriot Act. I do not support the militarization of the city/state police forces, yet we still need public police and the FBI. I certainly want abortion to stay 100% legal for at least the first 22-24 weeks, nor should we allow states to regulate abortion facilities out of existence. I was for gay marriage before Biden/Obama were. But yeah, I'm just a toking Repug....who just hasn't voted for a Repug in over 2 decades.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Government control of the money supply is the same as government not controlling the money supply?

I was right, you can't tell the difference. Thank you for demonstrating that I was right.

I am surprised that someone who claims to be literate and who reads the dictionary as you do can babble such nonsense and be expected to be taken seriously. There is nothing inconsistent with capitalism and monetarism under the normal understandings of the terms. But please, continue showing that "libertarians" are delusional.

If Monetarism is the same thing as Capitalism, why is it called Monetarism?

 

[laughing dog]

If Monetarism is the same thing as Capitalism, why is it called Monetarism?

Monetarism deals with an economic theory concerning the importance of the supply of money in an economic system while Capitalism describes an economic system. No one said they were the same thing, I said Monetarism is not inconsistent with Capitalism.