Friday, April 1, 2016

Libertarian Party Debates

John Stossel will be airing a debate among the three Libertarian Party presidential candidates on:

FOX Business Network

April 1st and April 8th

9 p.m. Eastern time

Gary Johnson, John McAfee and Austin Petersen will be debating.

I don't consider any of them hardcore principled libertarians, some are very far from libertarian.

Nothing worthwhile here.

 -RW

20 comments:

  1. I couldn't disagree more. Libertarians should get behind Gary Johnson in this race. He is not a perfect libertarian, so let's get that out of the way up front. However, he was two time Governor of New Mexico so he is electable. He is more libertarian than Rand Paul. And with enough votes, he can help turn the Libertarian Party into a viable option. He is the most palatable Libertarian Party option since Harry Browne. As Murray Rothbard understood, we libertarians should not remove ourselves from the political process. We have to vote to make more people aware. We need a viable Libertarian Party so we can attract good libertarians and end this Democrat / Republican stranglehold. Libertarians will achieve nothing in reducing the size and scope of government if Democrats and Republicans remain in power. Sure the State eventually erupts (hopefully) but it will sure as hell suck for us commoners waiting for it to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gary Johnson is incompetent, McAfee is a nutcase and Petersen is statist warmonger. Quite a choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is Johnson incompetent? Unpolished, yes. His record in New Mexico is quite good, relatively speaking.

      Besides incompetency in government is a good thing. Even better when the nincompoop in charge is in favor of cutting spending, slashing regulations and ending the war on people who use drugs.

      Delete
    2. Johnson's "libertarian" credentials were destroyed when Bob interviewed him during the last presidential election

      http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/how-libertarian-is-gary-johnson.html

      Delete
    3. Can we have Megan Kelly in the interview process just to get the real corrupt media feel. Might make it more popcorn worthy.

      Delete
    4. NY Cynic,

      "Johnson's "libertarian" credentials were destroyed when Bob interviewed him during the last presidential election

      http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/how-libertarian-is-gary-johnson.html"

      True that! Bob, you really asked great questions in that interview, and I was taken aback as to how out of line with my personal thinking Johnson is- more of a manager than a true, State hating libertarian. I think Johnson's overall effect is to befuddle people as to what libertarianism is about.

      Delete
  3. This is inevitable if you go political which is all about serving your own needs by coercing access to other people's money and lives. Don't vote. Live and let live as best you can.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah like that coercive douche Ron Paul. Let's discourage the development of a new generation of Ron Paul's by telling them how conformist and statist engaging in the political process is.

      Delete
    2. Hey, we all saw how Rand turned out.

      Not even Ron Paul himself can successfully develop a new generation of Ron Pauls.

      Delete
    3. Yes and we all see what happened to Rand because of how he turned out.

      Gary Johnson is nowhere near Ron Paul, but he is a great option for advancing liberty. And he rids us of the racist baggage who jumped from Ron Paul to Trump.

      It's like dumping Hayek because he's not Mises. I'll take Hayek over Keynes any day.

      Delete
  4. Johnson is no Ron Paul. No one is but Ron Paul.
    Why should we encourage a new generation to be political? We should encourage them to reject the State. Hate the State. Not conform and be apart of its corrupt evil murderous system.
    This is one area where I disagree with Rothbard. And I don't really see him going all that crazy about being politically active, and even if he was at times, who knows if he still would be? Reading the Rothbard papers I wonder.
    Rockwell isn't. Hoppe isn't. Woods isn't. Kinsella isn't. Wenzel isn't. If you listen to the Ron Paul Liberty Report, even Dr. Paul is quite disparaging towards political means as a way towards Liberty.

    Why can't Libertarians suck it up and just reject the State? Why do we have to be political? Politics is what has stolen our Liberty! Why do we think politics is the only avenue to make change? What the hell is wrong with Libertarians? Reject the State. Period. We don't need no stinking president. We don't need no stinking representatives. Are you holding on just hoping some day "our guy" will win?
    Down with the State.
    As Rothbard asked," Do you Hate the State?"
    Start acting like it.
    The answer is in "the politics of obedience".
    Remove consent. Otherwise, lick the hand that feeds you. But don't act like your a Libertarian.
    I am so sick of pussy, cowardly, short time preference wannabes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom Woods has a book titled Rollback where he discusses repealing big government policies piece by piece. Ron Paul was in Congress on and off for 3 decades. He ran for President three times. Hoppe is paid by taxpayer dollars at UNLV.

      Libertarians can make things marginally better by infiltrating government at all levels. We do this by winning over the hearts and minds of our neighbors. This should be self-evident.

      At some point there will be diminishing returns and we can move over to your view. Otherwise we wait until the State becomes more perverse, more controlling, the boot presses down further on our faces until the State self-implodes.

      Delete
    2. Infiltrating government and winning the hearts and minds of our neighbors are 2 different things.
      Tell me please how we have any good returns right now? Diminishing? Seriously? They have been diminishing for 150 years

      Delete
    3. Who wants a "return" from the State anyways?

      Delete
    4. What I mean by diminishing returns is that if we can elect libertarians to office, we can for a while achieve significant advancements toward a freer society. Fewer taxes, less spending, reduced cronyism, ending the war on people who use drugs, a non-interventionist foreign policy, respect for privacy, a sound monetary policy, fewer regulations, privatization - true privatization - of utilities and government services. All of this can be achieved through new legislation or repeal of existing laws.

      At some point, libertarians in office will not be able to advance towards a freer society except in very small increments or by blocking Statist policy. At that point, it is a worthy debate whether to continue with a libertarian vanguard or to disband the remaining State altogether. That is the point of diminishing returns.

      We are far from that point. Since we cannot conceivably overthrow the State without the State's self-implosion (either through complete degradation of society or total war), we should use the means currently available to us to roll back the State.

      This is a combination of political process and entrepreneurial and technological advancement. The two are not mutually exclusive. The more Ron Paul's we have in office, the more Howard Roark's we can have in the business world. The more Howard Roark's we have in the business world, the more Ron Paul's we can have in office.

      Libertarians and anarchists should be less like Tolstoy and more like Rothbard in politics.

      Delete
  5. Ok, so remove consent, easier said than done. My interactions with the state are at work (in the form of regulatory agencies) or rarely at home (registrations and taxation). If I refuse to comply I go to prison and no one's opinion of the state changes. They would just think, that guy is an idiot for not paying his taxes. What other option is there for reducing the power of the state? Because at this juncture, no value to the cause of liberty in non-compliance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a big difference, I think, in having to live with the State. It's here. And if we don't want a bullet to the face, there are some things now that we have to go along with. But we don't have to accept it. There I think is a big difference between going along involuntary so we don't get shot, to joining in with their holy masses.
      I pay my property taxes. Why? Not cause I love the State, but for now I must if I don't want to have my wife and kids shot. But I sure as hell and not going to give them the gratitude of participating in their splitting the lots of their looting.

      Delete
  6. As a movement, these are the best we have to offer.
    We have to move past Ron Paul.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Move past Ron Paul? Regression? No thanks. Libertarians should be the real "progressives" progressing towards Liberty. This isn't the "best" we have to offer. The offering is where we are making the mistake. Think about that words meaning. I won't offer anything to the State.

      Delete
  7. “I think that if you discriminate on the basis of religion, I think that is a black hole,” Mr, Johnson said. “I think you should be able to discriminate for stink or you’re not wearing shoes or whatever. If we discriminate on the basis of religion, to me, that’s doing harm to a big class of people.”

    Mr. Petersen wanted to know, however, whether a Jewish baker should be required to bake a Nazi-themed wedding cake.

    “That would be my contention, yes,” Mr. Johnson replied.

    http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/31/inside-the-beltway-gary-johnson-john-mcafee-austin/

    ReplyDelete