-16 votes

Dead Post: Read The Disclaimer

DISCLAIMER: This post was written to finally get someone to give me proof that people would keep speaking of but would never provide to back up what they said. Some arrogance thrown in for the sake of getting a response. Thanks to those that sent me the wenzel interview. Libertarian or not though, he's still a good candidate rather than "evil" one.

I'm really tired of all the Gary Johnson hate... along with being called a "GJ Fanboy" when anyone that knows me would call me a "Paul Fanboy" instead (Exhibit A: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.840325873507.22169...)

All I keep hearing over and over again are conspiracy theories of how he's a puppet for the CFR with no conclusive evidence to back it up AND claims that he doesn't even understand what libertarianism is.

A "fanboy" is someone that takes loyalty to someone or thing over integrity and is willing to look the other way in order to keep supporting something. I'm not a fanboy of anything. Integrity IS loyalty.

If I can't invalidate evidence that you offer... then I'll have to admit I'm wrong... I'd rather be wrong and then right than think I'm right when I'm wrong. Close-mindedness and the vast majority of people who attempt to discredit before ever considering what the other says... let alone trying to understand... is my biggest pet peeve... so why would I intentionally try to be a hypocrite?

...so after all the claims without a SINGLE example of evidence...

...are you going to be the one that proves he's not a libertarian?

P.S. If I invalidate your evidence and you ignore it, you've just shown that you're the "fanboy" of someone and not me.

I challenge you to finally offer me the proof that GJ isn't a libertarian because after I'm done pulling it apart... it will be apparent that you didn't have any real evidence from the start. I challenge you to do what you cannot.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

You've done a really great job of presenting GJ's strong points

So great that about half the people here have said they're going to vote for him -- no small victory. So, I don't understand why you're upset/angry. Do you expect every single DP member to vote for him? That would be a pretty irrational expectation. Some have already made up their minds to do something else, or will consider their options and decide in Nov. You can't FORCE people to vote a certain way...or to vote at all. You've probably done all you can on DP. I'd move on to untapped pools of voters on other forums who perhaps haven't heard anything about GJ yet. I'm not being facetious either, I just think it's a good idea.

Why did everyone at our state

Why did everyone at our state conventions vote for the same people up for delegate seats?

It's a strategy.

If we unified together for the sake of reaching the liberty movement's full potential... regardless of what people thought about Johnson (seeing as he doesn't even need to win for this strategy to bring us to where we can be in 2016 as well as reaching millions with the national debates in 2012)... they're choosing emotional thinking over critical and objective thinking.

They are sabotaging our potential.

Half of those writing in Paul still are willing to change their mind if Paul endorses Johnson. That should tell you enough about how brainwashed people have gotten themselves. They take loyalty to something, completely disregard REAL integrity by convincing themselves of whatever they WANT to believe, don't use their head at all because they think that "as long as I'm convinced that I'm living by these rules... then I'm doing good" even when they're really being destructive to their own cause.

Those that are going to sabotage our potential and tell themselves they're not responsible at all... well that's what they're going to do... but I'm going to fight it tooth and nail.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

He is NOT Pro-Life. Liberty without a guarantee of Life?

How is Liberty supposed to work if anyone and everyone who can not speak up for themselves is put to death?

That is not Liberty, neither is it Libertarian.

Such a concept is set against both God and man.

.

Libertarian

Here is a definition paper I wrote about the word Libertarian and philosophy thereof.

When it comes to classifying people by their political philosophies mainly only 2 are talked about; these are Liberals and Conservatives. You may hear some references to Socialist Communist, and Fascist, but these are not really accepted in the American culture. One term not mentioned or noticed generally in America is Libertarian. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary a Libertarian is an advocate of the doctrine of free will, or a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action. Also, in the political sense, Libertarian means “Advocate of Liberty and Free Markets”.
The first use of the word libertarian, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, was in 1789 as Belsham’s ‘Essays’ in which he coins the term in opposition to necessitarian, or believing something is inevitable because of preceding causes. That type of thinking faded with time and so did the word libertarian. The word libertarian was used rarely with different meanings until 1955 when it got its definition that it has today. In the May 1955 issue of ‘Ideals on Liberty’ Dean Russell, a senior member of the Foundation for Economic Education, wrote “Who is Libertarian?” In which he argues that when it comes to being labeled politically; most people of that time that were advocates of individual liberty with personal responsibility called themselves liberals (in the Jeffersonian Liberal sense), individualist, or conservatives. He states that when people use these words that they either had it wrong or they were misunderstood the word liberal, and that “The good and honorable word libertarian shall be used.” He also wrote that libertarian is the opposite of an authoritarian, or a libertarian is someone who rejects the use of force to impose their will on peaceful people.
Over the years the libertarian ideology has grown with the biggest boost coming in the last 5 years as people are getting tired of government involvement and coercion in our lives, and the use of our military force around the world. One of the people who started this unprecedented surge in people thinking more libertarian is Congressman Ron Paul. He outlined that in the last 10 years our personal liberties have been eroded by the government, and that they have replaced those liberties with a false sense of security. This has mostly to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001. When he pointed this out, and how the wars are wrong, the libertarian philosophy spread like wildfire through millions of people nationwide and many more worldwide. This simple idea that people can choose for themselves, and can be free and secure without the government using force or coercion is the very principles that this nation was founded on.
Libertarian is also a name of a political party in the United States. Its principles are the same as the meaning of the word itself; that we libertarians believe in: freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and that the government should only protect the people’s liberties and get out of our lives. The Libertarian Party is a rapidly growing segment of America politics, and they are the only party besides the Democrats and Republicans that has ballot access in all 50 States and some of the US territories.
I classify myself as a libertarian, because, I do not believe that the government should not be involved in our lives, and should not make our decisions for us. I believe as most libertarians that
taxes are a form of theft and government coercion, which goes against the libertarian philosophy. To me being a libertarian is being in tune with the founders of America.
One founder of America that I believe is mostly behind the libertarian philosophy is Thomas Jefferson. He was probably the biggest advocate of individual freedom, liberty, and small government of the founders, and he set the tone for what America would be about. He said that all people should have liberty and freedom, and he was probably the first American Politician that wanted to free the slaves. So much of what he did and what he said is the reason we are Americans. He along with the other founders forged a nation based on the libertarian philosophy and ideas, and we as libertarians are working to have that idea of freedom and liberty become once again what America is all about.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our Liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

"and he was probably the

"and he was probably the first American Politician that wanted to free the slaves."

Many others of our founders actually freed their slaves, or belonged to abolitionists societies, so this just isn't true. Jefferson owned slaves all his life. Although he was for freeing slaves in general, he was a lot more lukewarm than others who actually deserve recognition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery
Don't agree with everything in the link, but it sources that Jefferson owned slaves his whole life well.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Yeah that

is why I said probably, I was just trying to keep it short and didn't want to go off topic of my paper. I know that there were better advocates of emancipation, but that is a whole other paper. But he did try to get a bill past the Virginia General Assembly to free slaves, but he did state that blacks were inferior to whites which is straight racism.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our Liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

*Amazing PROOF* Right here. Documented!

The only debates Garry Johnson has been in this year in his run for president has been as a Republican.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

You killed it.

You killed it.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

LKY's picture

I will consider a vote for Gary Johnson

Although he is not Ron Paul, but he is the one among all the candidates that is closest to the principle of liberty. He does not have thirty years of record, but he did have good things done while he was the governor of NM. And, he is just like any of us that is learning more about the liberty vs. government.

A vote for GJ does not mean I agree with him on everything. I don't even agree with Dr. Paul on all the issues. A vote for GJ is a message that my vote will not be bullied by either GOP or DNC. I fear for another four years of Obama, but I will not surrender. I vote for liberty. Any one who wants to learn about it and join the Revolution like GJ, I will welcome and support them.

We will not have RP as our choice, and we can't sit silently for another thirty years hoping another RP with solid record will show up at the end. We need to support GJ to have our voice heard by the establishment. If GJ can receive a strong support from RP supporter, then there will be more of them join the revolution and compete for our support on the next election cycle. We will then have more than one GJ compete to be more close to Ron Paul. I like to see a competition for Liberty Champ in 2016.

Liberty does not equal a "Fair" tax

He wants to take the fruits of my labor via "Fair" tax...

...

He doesn't understand the 1st tenant of Liberty according to RP

He doesn't understand the very 1st tenant of protecting Liberty according to Ron Paul:

"Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_em...

...

If I wanna read the Daily Johnson

I'll go fap in my room....

Everyone knows he has no chance of winning a rigged game... Our best efforts right now are to make sure mittens is NOT elected so we can take over in 2016.

tasmlab's picture

Nitpicking reflection

I think GJ is dandy and am happy his voice and candidacy is out there.

This said, he doesn't use the vernacular and phrasings that instantly queue us that he is of the intellectual discipline of Mises/Rothbard/Block/Woods/Rockwell on and on. Someone who is can pick up on it right away.

Even if you read Rand Paul's first book (don't bother) you pick up on the Rothbard coming through.

This is what I'm guessing how some people are pressing his libertarian credentials.

GJ seems more like he's 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal', which means he is cherry picking political opinions from what is already in the establishment vs. smashing it wholesale and embracing non-aggression and property principles.

His support of the flat tax, for example, suggests that it important to maintain all of that govt revenue. Now to be fair, Dr. Paul's short-term plans didn't crash everyone into an ancap type of world, but he was able to advocate for the end of taxation totally.

Just my .02 FRN. Peace!

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Eh...

I don't think we can really use one blanket definition for being a "libertarian." Just like all labels, they can only divide us. How many libertarian ideas must one profess before they can be a libertarian? Since there are many disagreements among libertarians, which opinion is the standard? Do we weigh different principles higher than others? I'm not trying to stir up trouble but we're really arguing something that can not really be proven one way or another without a definitive set of criteria.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

wolfe's picture

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_pledge

The pledge reads:

"I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

GJ was required to sign this commitment to the NAP. He has failed in policy decisions and explanations thereof.

He doesn't even match the LP definition of Libertarian, let alone the definition of libertarian.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

That pledge doesn't mention

That pledge doesn't mention anything about the constitution. Defending someone who can't defend themselves outside of our borders doesn't break the pledge.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

wolfe's picture

Then you did not read it closely enough.

It's only a few words. Focus on them, understand their implications. Because in fact, your second sentence is covered in that pledge. And as far as your first sentence, that is irrelevant. Who cares about some invalid contract from 200 years ago that I neither agreed to, nor had any input in.

That pledge is the LP version of the NAP for candidates.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Others that swear by the NAP

Others that swear by the NAP have said that self-defense is allowed. This self-defense includes of self, those you care about, and property.

If liberty extends beyond country borders... then it extends to those we care about.

Protecting someone elses' liberty doesn't violate NAP.

Granted I don't believe that our taxes should go towards it... maybe a voluntary military group funded by donations.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

wolfe's picture

You can not violate the NAP to provide defense.

I have already covered this with you. Using tax money is a violation of the NAP, and therefore cannot be used to purchase defense.

You cannot violate the NAP in one regard, to claim adherence in another. In addition, "defense" of other nations is never defense.

"Granted I don't believe that our taxes should go towards it... maybe a voluntary military group funded by donations."

Now you are getting it, welcome to libertarianism.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I have the military combat

I have the military combat training and experience. Wanna go find Kony? lol I'll start a chip-in account.

So let me ask you this.

What shows that you're against the violation of NAP more...

...doing something to reduce the amount of NAP violation...

OR

...just saying that you're against it?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

wolfe's picture

fallacy...

That is a fallacious question. A forced confined choice to illicit a specific answer.

The ACTUAL answer is C:

"Refusing to violate the NAP, and refusing to support violations of NAP."

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

It's not fallacious. It's a

It's not fallacious. It's a Socratic question. It points out your contradiction.

I'm asking you to compare the two choices... which one shows it more?

Feel free to continue using this excuse to not answer a simple question while backing up your fallacious "fallacy" claim by pointing out and labeling what type of fallacy it is... or just answer it.

So which is it?

The fallacious cop out... or answering the question without changing it to a different question entirely.

If it makes you feel better... include your "C" as an option.

Which shows that you're against the violation of the NAP the most?

A. Doing something to help reduce the violation of the NAP.
B. Standing there not violating NAP.
C. Standing there not violating NAP while also saying you're against the violation of NAP.

Again... I'll wait for an answer... or your next excuse.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

wolfe's picture

B.

What someone says is irrelevant. Refusing to violate the nap show the greatest support.

The premise behind the NAP is everyone's right to be left alone as long as they are leaving everyone else alone.

And your option A., does not help if reducing the violation increases violations in other areas. As I said, your question is fallacious and framed to hide the truth.

I do not support GJ because he violates the NAP, and proposes additional violations. If he stopped violating the NAP, or at least tried to explain why his policies were lesser violations, I would consider him. As long as he doesn't even attempt to do so, he is not worth looking at.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

"A" is regarding NAP

"A" is regarding NAP violation overall... as in total amount. You intentionally misconstruing it to only regard where we are in the world right now versus an exaggerated and implied "same amount elsewhere" shows how desperate you are to keep believing what you want. To tell yourself Johnson wouldn't bring a drastically different foreign policy by comparison to what we've been used to for decades in order to stick to believing a fallacy... it just shows how far you're willing to go to avoid the point being made.

"Saying that you're against it" as a choice was to show the ONLY thing a write-in for Paul is worth... you telling yourself more than anyone else what you already know about your principles. No one else is going to pay the same kind of attention to write-ins the way those that cast them will. Might as well be making a statement to the open sky.

A vote for Johnson on the other hand is more than a claim about what you believe. It actually does something... even if he doesn't win... it brings the liberty movement to its full potential for 2016 and introduces the word "libertarian" to millions of people to look up themselves as well as shows how similar Obama and Romney are to people who would otherwise be focusing on their differences. And IF he did win... there WOULD be LESS NAP violation.

The difference of NAP violation that happens between Johnson and "Obamney"... falls on the hands of all of those that didn't vote for Johnson. If you were given the choice of 1 or 2 people dying... your logic says that you would just stand there and say to yourself "I don't believe in killing people"... which ends up with 2 people dying. The difference ends up YOUR responsibility.

Johnson believes in "humanitarian war", but in no way does that mean the same amount of NAP violation.

That being said... choosing the option of less NAP violation over the same amount or more is what someone that doesn't believe in NAP violation would want... unless I'm wrong. You don't want less NAP violation?

Even though "humanitarian war" is an oxy moron... it's pretty obvious what it is.

Aside from the taxpayer NAP violation... regarding just the "war" itself... it's for the sake of defending someone elses liberty.

Here's an example.
Stealing oranges = NAP violation
Not stealing oranges = NAP
Some oranges are going to be stolen no matter what = all 3 candidates are going to violate NAP

Now you're in a store and some oranges have already been stolen. Do you do something to make sure more aren't stolen... or do you just stand there idly by "not stealing oranges" yourself or maybe yelling at the top of your lungs "I don't condone orange stealing!"?

Which one do you do?

P.S. (More) Evil will prevail when good men do nothing.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Prove you aren't being paid to post this.

Good luck.

Free includes debt-free!

There's a difference in our

There's a difference in our two challenges. There are things that can be proven that show Gary Johnson didn't meet the criteria and definition of a libertarian. There aren't things that can prove I'm not paid by their campaign.

Feel free to fail some more with your "negative's can't be proven" bs.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

First Define Libertarian.

It is a term thrown around here, but doubtful few know what it is really suppose to mean. Hint: It doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want.

First read the disclaimer at

First read the disclaimer at the beginning of the post you supposedly read... and realize that you're responding to a post that was meant to egg someone on enough to FINALLY give me the proof everyone's been talking about but wouldn't give to back up their specific claims.

The post is dead.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

reedr3v's picture

I think he's libertarian-leaning in important

ways. But way down in this thread MarcMadness answered your question and you rejected the most commonly accepted criterion for libertarianism -- CONSISTENT acceptance of the Nonaggression Principle.

Your rebuttal showed your lack of understanding of this basic principle, so unless you are willing to learn you are just going to answer your own question to your sole satisfaction and convince few if any libertarians.

And look, I'm not against your man; but let's not pass him off as something he's not. Perhaps he will grow in increased understanding as time goes on, he seems open and thinking.

Question...

Honest question.

If he personally supported humanitarian war "A" but refused to use his power to force others to go, would that fall in line with your views on the non-aggression principle? What if his support merely allowed others to go and fight on a voluntary basis or donate money to the cause as they saw fit like we used to do with war bonds?

I agree with your post, I'm just always curious as to the ins and outs of our views on libertarian philosophy. These are some of the best discussions we have here at the DP.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.