[berzirk]

This was really well done.  I dig that he is owning the quirky goofiness, and going all in. In my world...it's literally impossible for him to be worse than the Democratic and Republican nominees (and doh, I still need to look into Stein more).

 

 

Maybe I underestimated the importance of the "old" Daily Show in guiding us through the political process, but based on this piece, and the little I knew of Jaguar Johnson from before...I think he has my vote, and I'm happy to vote for him.  This feels strange. 

 

 

[dohdough]

This was really well done.  I dig that he is owning the quirky goofiness, and going all in. In my world...it's literally impossible for him to be worse than the Democratic and Republican nominees (and doh, I still need to look into Stein more).

 

 

Maybe I underestimated the importance of the "old" Daily Show in guiding us through the political process, but based on this piece, and the little I knew of Jaguar Johnson from before...I think he has my vote, and I'm happy to vote for him.  This feels strange. 

Nah, he definitely worse than Hilary and Trump. Sure, the little skit was fun(ny), but if it were up to libertarians, they'd strip the country of every social program and social safety net there is. libertarians.

[berzirk]

Wow...worse than Hillary and Trump?  I definitely couldn't get on board with that. I think Clinton and Trump have the potential to be dangerous to our country.  I don't see Jaguar Johnson as dangerous. At worst, I see him as aloof. 

[TheN8torious]

Joe Rogan had him on his podcast a few weeks back. You can get a very good feel for what Johnson's beliefs are just from this. Some of it is reasonable stuff...but I just can't get behind "Hey guys, let's get rid of the IRS, EPA, public schools, etc. We don't need those old concepts holding back our true growth as individuals. People are totally trustworthy and responsible enough to self-regulate. No...really. No..I'm serious. Stop...stop laughing..."

 

 

Even Rogan (who is no political genius by any means) raises questions about limits and how do you stop people from abusing such an open system...and Johnson basically tries to sell him a bridge. Libertarian economic policies are just crazy pie in the sky shit that feels like you're getting conned. Johnson seems like a decent guy...maybe even somebody you'd have a beer with. But I don't trust him to look out for anyone's interests other than his own.

[berzirk]

Hunh, I'm not sure I see him as someone looking out for his own interests based on the points you brought up. And I'm totally with you, closing down every department, and letting a pure free market run wild will not solve the world's problems. But I do look at him as the Libertarian Bernie in a lot of ways.  With Bernie, there is a lot of stuff I disagree with him on, but I respect him as an honest person, and I think he thinks that everything he is proposing is what is best for America.  It's a transparency and selflessness that Trump and Clinton don't demonstrate. They strike me as power hungry whores who will do or so anything at any time, as long as it wins them a vote. I don't get that vibe from Jaguar. 

[TheN8torious]

Hunh, I'm not sure I see him as someone looking out for his own interests based on the points you brought up. And I'm totally with you, closing down every department, and letting a pure free market run wild will not solve the world's problems. But I do look at him as the Libertarian Bernie in a lot of ways.  With Bernie, there is a lot of stuff I disagree with him on, but I respect him as an honest person, and I think he thinks that everything he is proposing is what is best for America.  It's a transparency and selflessness that Trump and Clinton don't demonstrate. They strike me as power hungry whores who will do or so anything at any time, as long as it wins them a vote. I don't get that vibe from Jaguar. 

You could be right. I might honestly have a conditioned response to hearing things like that and naturally associating it with typical Republican thinking. For what it's worth, when Johnson was governor of NM, it was as a Republican. So, I guess I'm assuming no politician would make suggestions like that if they didn't stand to gain from it. But it's fair to say that could be my own bias showing. But I've also yet to see it work any other way...hence my skepticism.

 

I almost didn't want to say anything other than posting that video. Listen to the guy talk for yourself and see what you think. I ended up watching the entire podcast over the course of a few sittings, and there were times when I really agreed with him, and then times when I thought he was batshit crazy. But I will say it would be great if all presidential nominees went on a 2.5 hour conversational show like that...as opposed to giving us slogans and soundbites.

[mrsilkunderwear]

Nah, he definitely worse than Hilary and Trump. Sure, the little skit was fun(ny), but if it were up to libertarians, they'd strip the country of every social program and social safety net there is. libertarians.

umad bro?

[mrsilkunderwear]

It seems to me that some of you still do not understand libertarianism. We do not expect free market to be perfect and people to know what is best for everyone. By scaling things back we want people to have a say in their future and decide what is best for themselves. We actually agree with liberals on a lot of issues but have a different approach. Take gay marriage for example. Progressives believe it should be legalized and forced up religious institutions. Libertarians believe that we should get the government out of it and let consenting adults marry without an obstruction. 

 

We want to get rid of government waste and social programs because they are inefficient and unethical. For example IRS can be completely eliminated if we simplify the tax code. EPA has legalized pollution. In many other cases the negatives outweigh the benefits. 

 

Penn Jillette does a good job describing libertarianism: 

[dohdough]

umad bro?

 Not even. Besides, you just confirmed everything I said in your following post:
 

It seems to me that some of you still do not understand libertarianism. We do not expect free market to be perfect and people to know what is best for everyone. By scaling things back we want people to have a say in their future and decide what is best for themselves. We actually agree with liberals on a lot of issues but have a different approach. Take gay marriage for example. Progressives believe it should be legalized and forced up religious institutions. Libertarians believe that we should get the government out of it and let consenting adults marry without an obstruction. 
 
We want to get rid of government waste and social programs because they are inefficient and unethical. For example IRS can be completely eliminated if we simplify the tax code. EPA has legalized pollution. In many other cases the negatives outweigh the benefits. 
 
Penn Jillette does a good job describing libertarianism: 

Libertarians sure do like a little dishonesty and half-truths to try to convince people that they're "rational." Those are some nice soundbites, but anyone with at least half an inquiring mind and knowledge of a little history understands that libertarianism is stupid. Fortunately for libertarians, most people have less than half an inquiring mind and absolutely no sense of what history is beyond the narrative of the hegemony.

 

Btw, your line about the EPA legalizing pollution is absolutely hilarious. Why not eliminate the FDA while you're at it; they legalize food poisoning!

 

Keep herping that derp, my friend.

 

PS. You REALLY need to introduce me to the person supplying you with dem drugs.

[mrsilkunderwear]

 Not even. Besides, you just confirmed everything I said in your following post:
 

Libertarians sure do like a little dishonesty and half-truths to try to convince people that they're "rational." Those are some nice soundbites, but anyone with at least half an inquiring mind and knowledge of a little history understands that libertarianism is stupid. Fortunately for libertarians, most people have less than half an inquiring mind and absolutely no sense of what history is beyond the narrative of the hegemony.

 

Btw, your line about the EPA legalizing pollution is absolutely hilarious. Why not eliminate the FDA while you're at it; they legalize food poisoning!

 

Keep herping that derp, my friend.

 

PS. You REALLY need to introduce me to the person supplying you with dem drugs.

Oh oh, hit the nerve there? I actually sometimes wish Bernie Sanders would win so the economy could tank and people would be reminded that progressives are idiots when it comes to basic economics. FDA poisoning people? No, but they do drive up the cost of prescription drugs. 

 

Maybe you should spend some time educating yourself instead of wasting your time reading the huffington post. 

 

PS: Sure, as soon as it is legalized. 

[Darby27]

 But I don't trust him to look out for anyone's interests other than his own.

So Hillary or Trump?

[TheN8torious]

It seems to me that some of you still do not understand libertarianism. We do not expect free market to be perfect and people to know what is best for everyone. By scaling things back we want people to have a say in their future and decide what is best for themselves. We actually agree with liberals on a lot of issues but have a different approach. Take gay marriage for example. Progressives believe it should be legalized and forced up religious institutions. Libertarians believe that we should get the government out of it and let consenting adults marry without an obstruction. 

No, i get it. I just personally believe it's naive to think human beings will operate fairly and justly without an overseer to make them do so. It is basic animal instinct to fill your desires by any means necessary. To suggest that we're above that because we walk upright and talk is foolish. If you gave people the opportunity to cheat and they knew they wouldn't get caught, I promise you'd have damn near 100% of people doing it. Regulations are needed because human beings are vile creatures.

 

And any notion that the public with our cell phone cameras will do a better job as watchdogs than we do now (when we have people with cell phones PLUS government agencies) makes no sense. Getting rid of the IRS, EPA, etc. leads to more system abuse...not less. That should be common sense.

[TheN8torious]

So Hillary or Trump?

Haha, fair point. I can't say I love Hillary as a candidate. She's a career politician, and I think she's as slimy as most of them. But I guess if I'm picking my poison, for me...she screws up the country the least. Even if you say she's not going to fulfill most promises, her general beliefs are more in line with what I think needs repair. So, for me...it's at least something. Obviously, that's a personal opinion, and everyone is free to disagree.

 

I understand why people like Trump. I see it all over my damn Facebook news feed. I get it. But even looking past his brash nature and offensive behavior, I just disagree with his ideas and I don't think they'll work in a way that betters the United States. When he says that his policies will help all Americans and strengthen all of the social classes, I don't believe him. I don't believe that corporate America paying less taxes will suddenly cause more registers to be open at Walmart. I don't believe that extra money won't just be pocketed by upper level executives. I don't believe in trickle down.

 

I feel like Trump is conning the rest of the country by buttering up emotional demographics. "We need to treat our veterans better!" Well, no shit. Rah-fucking-rah. That's low hanging fruit. "Women who get abortions should go to jail". Boom...now he's got the Christian demographic. We live in a country of idiots where you can get support just by throwing out catchphrases without even beginning to talk about HOW you're going to make things better.

 

So, I guess it's not that I don't think Hillary is FOR Hillary. Maybe she just does a better job of hiding it. I feel like I'm choosing between shopping at a store where I MIGHT get ripped off...or shopping at a store where I KNOW I'll get ripped off, lol.

[mrsilkunderwear]

No, i get it. I just personally believe it's naive to think human beings will operate fairly and justly without an overseer to make them do so. It is basic animal instinct to fill your desires by any means necessary. To suggest that we're above that because we walk upright and talk is foolish. If you gave people the opportunity to cheat and they knew they wouldn't get caught, I promise you'd have damn near 100% of people doing it. Regulations are needed because human beings are vile creatures.

 

And any notion that the public with our cell phone cameras will do a better job as watchdogs than we do now (when we have people with cell phones PLUS government agencies) makes no sense. Getting rid of the IRS, EPA, etc. leads to more system abuse...not less. That should be common sense.

Wow you really hit the nail on the head. You are right, people do not always operate fairly and justly. Everyone performs best when they work for their own self interest which is what has been happening during the whole course of human history. This is why we should not give a government more power as it will and has been concentrated in the hands of a few. People talk about the rich abusing the system, yes with the help of a powerful government. This is why libertarians want more individual freedom as that takes away the power from a majority and make each life matter. Having more freedom does not mean regulations will not exist, instead rights need to be more clearly defined. Each person is free to do what they want as long as their freedom does not interfere with the rights of others. There will still be course, law and a system in place to deal with criminals. I am not talking about an anarchist wild west. 

 

System abuse defined by unjust laws. So what if IRS disappears? Do you truly worry about the people not paying their "fair" share? I personally think I have the right to the fruits of my labor. The government can  be reduced in scope and still get their money through sales tax or tariffs. EPA... well they did a good amount of damage to the environment as well and yet they weren't really penalized. Other companies still pollute and damage the environment and the EPA does not stop them. A better solution would be better implementation of property rights. 

[TheN8torious]

My biggest concerns are Johnson's belief in a free market system in areas where "goofs" are not acceptable. He's talked about healthcare and how we need competition and a legitimate marketplace.

 

The problem is, that generally leads to people cutting corners to reduce their costs as much as possible so their profit can be as large as possible. So, as much as he can declare "government healthcare is insanity", having a system that equates to direct from China goods on eBay is much, much worse.

 

And it's one thing to say "make the prices competitive". But eventually, you hit a wall where the question is "what about people in poverty who get sick?" and the answer is "Well...you're fucked!" To me, Libertarianism feels like Darwinism politics. It's survival of the fittest. And if you can't cut it, your evolutionary line just dies off because that's for the betterment of the species anyway.

 

Oh, but wait...he thinks the states should handle it themselves. Cool. So, you get states who feel sympathetic of people in unfortunate situations, that offer healthcare options...everybody in need moves to those states...the states get overloaded...the system fails...and Libertarians get to gloat "See! See! We told you government fails at everything." How is that any less rigged?

[RedvsBlue]

On a basic level I feel like it's at odds with the whole reason we started banding together in societies in the first place. We did it for common defense and the belief that banding together would give us a better chance for survival.

Instead, the libertarian mindset is further down the road of "every man for himself." No help for those that fall behind, the social Darwinism we've spoken of. The problem is, time and time again we've seen that when people have nothing left, they have nothing to lose. "Well, I can starve or I can steal this food. Well, I'm already stealing food and am a criminal, why not that car, too?" I mean, there's a reason why the highest crime areas have the highest poverty levels as well. Except for Wall Street, of course.

Simply leaving people behind who aren't able to "keep up" just creates a breeding ground for gangs, and, as we've seen in the Middle East, terrorist groups like ISIS.

As for charity organizations to pick up the slack? Not a chance. They already only help a small percentage of the truly needy and if you eliminate the tax incentives for donations with a simplified tax code, you'll see even less donations, not more. The truly altruistic people out there are few and far between.

Also, that liberal haven Breitbart posted an article citing that the US has fallen 3 spots during President Obama's presidency to #20 in the World Freedom Index. Ahead of them are such libertarian bastions as Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Sweden.

http://www.breitbart...-freedom-index/

And here's the report prepared by the Cato Institute:
http://object.cato.o...-index-2015.pdf

It's actually pretty amusing when you see how many socialist nations are ahead of the US in terms of freedom.

[Donken]

I like freedom so I'm voting for Johnson instead of one of the two con artists.

Americans will put the Clintons back in the White House though, Obamas poll numbers say so. Trump will lose worse than Romney did last election. I'm a Romney Republican so Johnson seems like the only reasonable one left to vote for even though I don't agree with everything of his.

[TheN8torious]

Clinton will win because she's the only one not telling the fastest growing portion of the country (lower and low-middle class) to go themselves, thus inciting mass crime and violence.

That doesn't mean people in poverty should be able to essentially hold the nation hostage by not contributing. But the second you willfully turn your back on them and refuse to help improve their circumstances, you are inviting all of the problems of impoverished nations into our own backyard.

It just comes across incredibly brash and almost like daring people to try something. Just wait till the kidnappings start. People think it can't happen here...but that's exactly how it does.

[berzirk]

Clinton will win because she's the only one not telling the fastest growing portion of the country (lower and low-middle class) to go themselves, thus inciting mass crime and violence.

That doesn't mean people in poverty should be able to essentially hold the nation hostage by not contributing. But the second you willfully turn your back on them and refuse to help improve their circumstances, you are inviting all of the problems of impoverished nations into our own backyard.

It just comes across incredibly brash and almost like daring people to try something. Just wait till the kidnappings start. People think it can't happen here...but that's exactly how it does.

Well you know that's not true, Sanders had that same message, and in fact more staunchly, than Clinton did all along. 

 

I think her domestic policies will be very Obama-like, and those were hit or miss for me.  Her foreign policy will be George W. Bush on steroids, and that is terrifying.  She will put our country at greater risk than Obama ever did. Trump too, but personally, I'm ready for a non-interventionist, non-chickenhawk, non-career politician who has more lobby dollars tied to them, then potentially anyone else in the history of American politics. She's dangerous, and Trump is a stupid Troll. 

 

I believe the open question is which candidate gets hurt most by the current increase in third party hype, specifically Libertarian?  Do the historical Republicans vote against Trump and with someone like Johnson, or will we see "Bernie Democrats" support Johnson in larger numbers?  I think it's fair to say that a Green Party vote for Jill Stein is a liberal voting against Clinton. 

[dohdough]

Any liberal that votes for Johnson is a neo-liberal, which is the opposite of what a liberal/progressive should stand for. I can't see establishment republicans going over to the libertarian ticket either, although I do see a generational shift of conservatives moving the republican party to be more libertarian leaning rather than having a liberal shift though. That superficial veneer of social liberalism mixed with fiscal conservatism is a great tag line, but once you break through the thin crust, it's nothing but toxic waste underneath, so you can understand why it'd be so appealing.

[detectiveconan16]

[mrsilkunderwear]

Ill see you and raise you with this 

[berzirk]

Any liberal that votes for Johnson is a neo-liberal, which is the opposite of what a liberal/progressive should stand for. I can't see establishment republicans going over to the libertarian ticket either, although I do see a generational shift of conservatives moving the republican party to be more libertarian leaning rather than having a liberal shift though. That superficial veneer of social liberalism mixed with fiscal conservatism is a great tag line, but once you break through the thin crust, it's nothing but toxic waste underneath, so you can understand why it'd be so appealing.

Maybe. I see it as a "centralization" of the majority.  For a long time we've been led to believe that the radicals of both parties are the core, and that you win the radicals, you win the party, but I think this year we have two radicals, and they're losing the general public, and people are ready for a centrist. 

 

And thinking that most Americans are involved or educated politically to a point where they'll dig deeper than the surface is clearly wishful thinking. :P

[dohdough]

Maybe. I see it as a "centralization" of the majority.  For a long time we've been led to believe that the radicals of both parties are the core, and that you win the radicals, you win the party, but I think this year we have two radicals, and they're losing the general public, and people are ready for a centrist. 

 

And thinking that most Americans are involved or educated politically to a point where they'll dig deeper than the surface is clearly wishful thinking. :P

Who are these "radicals" you're talking about? The Ninja Turtles?

 

Clinton is the epitome of the establishment candidate. You also don't see establishment dems getting primaried by local social dems and WINNING, unlike in republican races where you see teabaggers slaughtering establishment republicans. Sorry, but you really can't compare the two and say that it's the same shit when it really isn't.

 

Unless of course you only wanted to point out that the majority of the electorate is politically illiterate, then I wholeheartedly agree.

[berzirk]

Who are these "radicals" you're talking about? The Ninja Turtles?

 

Clinton is the epitome of the establishment candidate. You also don't see establishment dems getting primaried by local social dems and WINNING, unlike in republican races where you see teabaggers slaughtering establishment republicans. Sorry, but you really can't compare the two and say that it's the same shit when it really isn't.

 

Unless of course you only wanted to point out that the majority of the electorate is politically illiterate, then I wholeheartedly agree.

Sorry, I was talking about voters in my "radical" claim, not candidates.  I think back to John McCain, who was a fair bit closer to centrist, then neo-con, right wing, but as the election neared, he dug in his heels, and tried to paint himself as the most conservative guy since Republican Jesus, Ronald Reagan. The candidates know that the extremes, the radicals in the party typically are more politically active, much more likely to vote, and they pander the message to those extremists.  Where the 3rd parties are finally gaining traction is in ignoring the extremists, and saying "we're just like you".  We have a variety of opinions on a variety of topics, and it's not fixed to a party line.  Now of course they aren't, they're still politicians, but I think 3rd parties are the first groups to recognize this, and try to appeal to the majority...the centrists. 

[Imogenewap]

What to say. My favorite one they come up with is that high gas could force us to surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan... This is a benefit how, exactly?