60 votes

Not so fast, Mr. Johnson

The revolution continues, and so does Ron Paul's campaign. The articles and comments I have been reading of late state how similar Paul and Johnson are, but, during my own research I have come across significant differences.

I'll start with foreign policy, since that is an issue that I hold near and dear to my heart. It would seem that Johnson is not a non-interventionist. He has justified continuing undeclared wars under the guise of 'humanitarian' reasonings, and is in support of continued drone attacks. He has also stated he would not close Guantanamo and supports military tribunals. Paul, on the other hand, is in opposition of undeclared wars, targeted assassinations via drone strikes and Guantanamo. I stand with Paul on these issues.

Johnson's views on immigration, an open border policy and his support of the mis-named "free trade" agreements are also in contrast to Dr. Paul. I was surprised to learn of the open border policy, afterall, what is a country without borders?

Johnson promotes the so called "fair tax" as a replacement for the federal income tax. Paul said he could go along with that if the tax rate was zero.

One of the most important differences between the two is monetary policy. Johnson has not given me any reason to believe that he realizes financial fraud is doing more harm to our country than any terrorist ever could. Paul does realize this and has been fighting against it for thirty plus years. The monetary system is the driver and the power behind ALL political issues, without exception. Johnson seems to be content to work with in the Federal Reserve, whereas, Paul would like to see it abolished.

Yes, yes I know when Johnson was governor of New Mexico he left that state with a surplus. I do, however, find it interesting to note that Federal government spending was a major driver of the New Mexico economy. In 2005, the Federal government spent $2.03 on New Mexico for every dollar of tax revenue collected from that state. During Johnson tenure, it was about dollar for dollar.

Another difference can be found at opensecrets.org. Johnson is running his campaign in the red, whereas, Paul is running his campaign debt free. It would seem that Paul walks the walk, and Johnson talks the talk.

My apologies to those who might perceive this post as an anti-Johnson rant, for that is not my intent. I am just sharing some of my perspectives in hopes of opening an honest dialog. I feel debate is healthy, and I might learn something new. The recipe for perpetual ignorance is being satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.

The libertarian in the video linked below, doesn't seem to care for Johnson, but I posted it for a bit more insight. I would love to find a "ronpaulican" to cary our movement forward, should Paul not get the nomination, I am just not sure who to trust and haven't been convinced to jump on the Johnson brandwagon.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

thanks for that info

i have not done my research on this, i was just wondering. thanks for the tip-off

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

When Ron did that I seriously

When Ron did that I seriously almost completely stopped supporting him.

I'm glad Gary is running.

Paul is my first choice as

Paul is my first choice as well. I won't even consider Romney or the Barakness monster. Which leaves me with GJ, or another third party candidate. I would like to bestow upon the Republican establishment the same courtesies they have bestowed upon Paul and his supporters, and stick it to them. I am just not certain that GJ doesn't want to be part of the establishment. He seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

Reason For Anti-GJ Posts On Daily Paul

This post follows a trend I have noticed, which didn't make sense to me until I read the linked article.

http://www.dailypaul.com/246404/real-reason-for-anti-johnson...

LoL...for the record, I am

LoL...for the record, I am not a Romney/Obama operative.

For the record...

it doesn't matter, because the trolls are opportunists and are looking to defame GJ in any way possible. Yes... even by voting up your post.

No one has ever said they

No one has ever said they were clones, to my knowledge.

Of coure there are differences, but in most cases, we are talking slight differences.

Both are MUCH less interventionist than any President in the last century.

Ron Paul says that he is AGAINST many things, but leaves the door open for them. He SAYS he is against military intervention, but backs that up with saying we should have a Congressional mandate and a solid purpose. Gary does leave the door open more clearly, but defines why he leaving it open, for extraordinary circumstances which hopefully would never occur.

Johnson's view on immigration is significantly closer to Rothbard than Ron Paul's more statist, nationalist position.

Johnson's view on abortion is more in line with Rothbard whereas Ron Paul's is 180 degrees out of line with the libertarian POV.

I would also say that Johnson has never tried to ban flag burning (a nationalist, statist stance) and finds the idea of Ron Paul's border fence to a waste of money.

You say that Gary Johnson used less Federal funding during his tenure than Bill Richardson, but saying that as if it were a bad thing. Maybe you meant something else?

I don't believe Gary Johnson was against Martin Luther King Jr Day, he doesn't believe that the World Trade Center bombing was a Mossad conspiracy, and he doesn't have a problem with gay people or black people or Jewish people.

How many surpluses did Ron Paul leave? How many government jobs did he cut?

Johnson may be running in the red, but he can also easily cover it. Since he is getting more and more funding, it will equalize. But what you also fail to say is that he is running the most efficient Presidential campaign in modern history. And he is actually running a campaign and spending money. Ron Paul has quit his campaign, so it's easy to run in the black when you are collecting money for a campaign you aren't running.

Not trying to have anti-Paul rant, just opening it up for discussion.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Libertarian POV and abortion

Johnson's view on abortion is more in line with Rothbard whereas Ron Paul's is 180 degrees out of line with the libertarian POV.

It all depends on when life begins. If life begins at conception, which is Ron Paul's POV, then Ron Paul is right in line with the Libertarian POV.

No, actually, it doesn't

No, actually, it doesn't matter according to libertarian theory.

The woman is the absolute owner of her body and no one has the ability to live within it without her permission. Just as no one has the right to be in your house.

You should read up on this so you may understand it better. Google search "Rothbard" and "abortion" for a good primer.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Dogmatic following

Of the Libertarian Party line is not good in my opinion. Once more, the woman owns her own body; the infant is its own being. As far as the permission part is concerned, that is pretty much waved when somebody leaves their legs open.

It's not its own being until

It's not its own being until it is born, it is completely reliant on the mother.

In any case, the libertarian line is that you get to choose, not government.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

If we

Are going to argue about being dependent on someone, I would ask if all the mentally handicapped are not human, they are always dependent upon their parents. They are completely reliant on their mothers. Is it okey to abandon them?

As such, I would have to regard that statement as false.

Their custody can be

Their custody can be transferred. They are dependent to a certain degree, but not on a single person, they can be dependent on anyone.

Also, the issue is property rights, not dependency.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Once more

The woman does not own the infant, it is its own being. As such, the aggressor is the abortionist providing the service.

What of dependence? Once birth is given, the infant can be transfered elsewhere.

Again, that's not libertarian

Again, that's not libertarian theory and never has been.

The abortion provider is like a private security service evicting someone off your property.

Again, that doesn't make it right, that's just the libertarian approach.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

However...

If she had consensual sex, and understood that she might get pregnant, then is the baby really aggressing against her?

Yes, she owns her body, but can you really compare an unborn baby to an invader in your home?

Unless, I guess, the baby was really threatening her life.

It's a very very difficult subject.

________________________________________

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. ~Thomas Paine

That's the point. It IS a

That's the point. It IS a difficult subject. I can argue both sides of the debate and make pro-lifers and pro-choicers both seem silly. So what do you do with a controversial subject with no right answer?

Two options -

1. Don't do anything.

2. Make something illegal and start jailing people.

What would a liberty minded person do?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

The Non Aggression Principle

I have read a bit on it and I understood the Non Aggression Principle to apply here if indeed Life does begin at Conception. If this is correct, then the mother owns her body but she does not own the new life inside of her and therefore NAP would apply.

Maybe it is you who should read up on the NAP and the argument put forth for it being applied here...

NAP doesn't apply. It is

NAP doesn't apply.

It is PROPERTY RIGHTS.

The mother is the undeniable owner of her body and can evict anyone she likes for any reason.

Just as you can kick out anyone on your property any time for any reason, with aggression if necessary.

NAP doesn't apply when someone is on your property.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

That is your argument.

Ron Paul's is NAP applies, whether you agree or not is irrelevant and as such from said argument perfectly in line with the Libertarian POV.

No, it isn't.

It is perfectly in line with the religious social conservative view. Here is the libertarian view as espoused by the guy who pretty much decided what a Libertarian actually is -

"Murray Rothbard, in For a New Liberty, writes: 'Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion.' In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard states: 'The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man's absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother's womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother's freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic 'invader' of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as 'murder' of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother's body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.' Mr. Rothbard argues that it is immaterial if the unborn is alive, as science and medicine teach, but that this is solely a property rights issue. Though he uses different words, it is basically a restatement of the Marxist position on abortion. Just as in the Marxist position, Rothbard argues that it is how the mother thinks of the unborn child, either as human or subhuman, that determines the unborn child's rights. Again this is a logical fallacy, and to claim that a fetus is a parasite and invader shows a complete lack of understanding of human reproduction, and is contradicted by scientific and medical fact. While it is true that humans have wrongly viewed their fellow humans as sub-humans, such as Jews, Palestinians, American Indians, and others, this has only led to genocide, a loss of freedom, and denying people their most precious possession ' human life. While Mr. Rothbard argues that every person has the absolute right to self-ownership to include their body and life, he contradicts himself by stating the mother's desires can override the unborn infant's rights to the unborn's body and life by wrongly thinking of the child as a parasitic invader. He then concludes that if mothers are not allowed to have their children killed, that this is an infringement on mother's rights. People who understand human sexual reproduction and pregnancy realize that the womb is the unborn child's home, that nature prepares and uses the woman's body for the benefit of the unborn infant, and that the unborn baby can never trespass. This is just a fact of life, confirmed by scientific and medical fact, and no amount of fantasizing, illogical rationalizing, or de facto statements to the contrary can change this."

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Uh, yea it is.

Rothbard's position is just an opinion just like everyone else who has ever weighed in on this topic.
Just because Rothbard says "it is so" does not make it any more valid than someone else saying "it is not so".
If life begins at conception, then NAP applies and abortion is murder, no different than walking up to someone on the street and blowing them away.
If it does not, then NAP does not apply and it is not murder.
Like it or not, there are Libertarians on both sides of of this topic.
On one side there is you and Rothbard, on the other is Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Libertarians for Life (http://www.l4l.org).

Essentially this: There will be Libertarians on both sides of this argument for the foreseeable future and both sides will be using using Libertarian positions to support their arguments, regardless of YOUR and my opinions...

I have read and understand

I have read and understand both sides and I firmly believe the individual and property argument trumps the religious argument. I have always disagreed with Ron on religious grounds, other than the basic "do unto others" rule. An early-term fetus is not a whole human being. A late-term baby is worth protecting because it can live outside the womb, HOWEVER it is the mother's choice, not mine to make. It's no business of mine.

Yes, you are correct... no

Yes, you are correct... no one ever said that Paul and GJ are clones. Where you see "slight" differences, I see significant differences.

Paul is right on the money when it comes to foreign policy. From my understanding of the Constitution, the Executive has no power to wage war against a sovereign country, unless OUR nation is under imminent threat. Should NATO, International Laws and United Nation Mandates supercede our Constitution? Is the War Powers Act Constitutional? Are Presidential Executive Orders Constitutional?

Freedom isn't Free --- But the Constitution is available free of charge, for those who care to actually READ it.

Leaving "the door open" on foreign policy is the problem. The term 'foreign policy' does not exist in the Constitution. All members of the federal government have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, and should do only those things that are clearly authorized. Careful reading of the Constitution reveals Congress has a lot more responsibility than the president in dealing with foreign affairs. The president is the Commander-in-Chief, but can't declare war or finance military action without explicit congressional approval. A good starting point would be for Congress to assume the responsibility given it and to make sure the executive branch does not usurp any more authority explicitly granted to Congress.

On the issue of immigration, I happen to like Paul's six point plan.

Abortion is really a non issue for me...leave it up to the states.

Flag burning is also a non issue.

Johnson used federal funding to balance the state budget and 'create' jobs. Right or wrong, It still sent up a red flag. Open for discussion on that one.

As for the snide in the rest of your post...Paul has been a dear friend to liberty and those that think otherwise haven't fully researched his positions. Paul believes in equal rights for everyone and 'special' rights for no one.

I will leave you with this, Paul is still in it to win it!

1. If Paul is right on the

1. If Paul is right on the money, so is Gary because they have the SAME foreign policy!!!!! They only differ in the rhetoric and semantics of it!!!! Gary will not go to war without Congressional authority!

2. Tell me where immigration is in the Constitution. Ron Paul says it is CLEARLY Federal authority, yet I can't find it ANYWHERE.

3. You're wrong. It is the President chiefly in charge of foreign policy -

"Under the Constitution, the president is the federal official that is primarily responsible for the relations of the United States with foreign nations. The president appoints ambassadors, ministers, and consuls —subject to confirmation by the Senate—and receives foreign ambassadors and other public officials. With the secretary of state, the president manages all official contacts with foreign governments. On occasion, the president may personally participate in summit conferences where heads of state meet for direct consultation. Thus, President Woodrow Wilson headed the American delegation to the Paris conference at the end of World War I; President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Allied leaders during World War II; and every president since then has sat down with world leaders to discuss economic and political issues and to reach agreements.|

Through the Department of State and the Department of Defense, the president is responsible for the protection of Americans abroad and of foreign nationals in the United States. The president decides whether to recognize new nations and new governments, and negotiate treaties with other nations, which become binding on the United States when approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The president may also negotiate "executive agreements" with foreign powers that are not subject to Senate confirmation."

5. His 6 point plan is well more unconstitutional than Gary's.

6. How is flag burning a "non-issue"???? Because Ron Paul is saying "to hell with property rights and free speech, you can't insult our country or flag!!!!" Sounds pretty statist to me. I guess it's convenient to just say "it doesn't matter" because it's your candidate. Pretty sure you'd be flipping out if Gary proposed banning flag burning.

7. Gary Johnson doesn't get to decide what federal money comes into the state. That is decided by Congress, often unconstitutionally. What you are then saying is that NO governor is qualified to be President if they take money that is returned to the states, but it's okay that Ron Paul is the guy steering that money to the states AND putting strings on how it is to be used. No red flag there, because Ron Paul did it. Right? Double standard.

8. Ron Paul hasn't been in it to win it for months. That is a legacy fantasy of people not thoroughly connected to reality. It's one thing to have a dream, but make sure it's at least within the realm of possibility. Or as I said elsewhere, start praying that Mittens gets hit by a bus.

IOW, you are amazingly transparent. If Ron Paul does something anti-libertarian, it's perfectly fine, but Gary even hints at it and he's unelectable. If Ron Paul is wrong, Gary has to agree with it or he's unelectable. If Ron Paul does something bad, it's "not important". Try to be intellectually honest for a change.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

bill still shill chill ;)

so what you're saying is that Johnson is no Ron Paul but a much better choice than Romney or obama. i agree. i do believe Johnson has gone into detail and clarified most but not all of the policy positions you rightfully raised.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Fed issue is not greater than terrorist threat.

you will not get any converts if you underestimate terrorist agenda and threat. those threats are within us borders and not so much outside. the fed poses as great as a risk as islamists do in the US. the fed steals money, while dozens of terrorist cells and more on the us-mexico border are there to kill and take advantage of chaos.

paul does not seem to want to abolish the fed. his crony estab aides are content in just an audit bill passing the house. they have little to nothing for the senate. of course, republicans will pass it as long as they know their buddies and counterparts in dnc will not really consider it. audit hte bill is nothing, a partial audit got passed along with help of a democrat. and the corrupt fed is already known from the last audit as well as otehr info bloomberg pulled up.

it is not time to just talk like an audit, but need of leadership and bills and education on abolishing the fed or reigning in its powers.

if johnson still wants to work the fed rather than reigning it in, than that is trouble. but he has at least said owrking with the fed. paul's friend romney, on the other hand, doesn't even want to deal with teh fed and has publicly said bernanke and the fed are doing the good job and that as president eh would not work with the fed as they should be left alone and not audited.

of course rand is aliar and said romney never said he was against an audit, when in fact inmainstream media interviews, he clearly said an audit was a waste of time and as president he would devote his time to other things.

jj

..

put down the crack pipe and step away from the bottle of everclear.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

mockery, but no argument with what i have to say.

if you can't argue what i have to say, so you just stick to mockery in order to further romney-establishment agenda.

jj

The border violence...

is a result of the drug war... not terrorists. The FED poses a much larger problem for America than does terrorism. One terrorist event can kill hundreds... The collapse of the dollar will place huge portions of the population in immediate 'bread line' style poverty. Your talk of terrorism is overblown. If we would quit meddling in the Middle East, many of these threats would turn their attention to the problems they would still likely face at home.

Ron Paul certainly wants to audit and end the FED. Mittens, on the other hand, doesn't. You are correct. Romney is for bailouts. Hell, he got one at Bain... Remember Kennedy's ad in 1994:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c0y3FDgxf8

Neither Romney nor Obama offer any real solutions.