A Better Choice for 2016
The Libertarian Party is selecting a nominee too.
Trump! Clinton! Is that all there is? No. Fortunately, we have other choices.
A recent poll shows that if the election were held today, 11 percent of Americans would vote for a Libertarian, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. That's surprising, since last election Johnson got just 1 percent of the vote.
This year, he's doing better, probably because Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton hold the highest percentage of "unfavorable" reactions from voters in more than 30 years. I assume the Libertarian total will go higher, since most poll respondents had no opinion about Johnson. They probably don't know who he is.
They can learn more by watching my Fox Business Network show April 1 and April 8. On those days, I'll air a debate among the three leading Libertarian candidates. They are Johnson, software businessman John McAfee and The Libertarian Republic founder Austin Petersen. The Party will choose its nominee at the Libertarian convention in Orlando, Florida, over Memorial Day weekend.
What a relief to hear libertarian views after months of hearing Clinton and Trump talk about reducing Americans' liberties.
Clinton wants to raise taxes, curtail gun rights, force us all to pay for inefficient "green energy," impose new regulations on just about everything, etc.
Trump wants to increase spying on American citizens, put a giant wall between the U.S. and Mexico, start a ruinous trade war, etc.
Libertarians want limited government, one that doesn't mess around in your personal life or try to run the economy.
Gary Johnson suggests immigrants to the U.S. just first undergo a background check to make sure they aren't criminals or terrorists, and then prove they have employment and can pay their taxes. He'd get rid of the complicated quotas the U.S. has on who can come here from which countries and in which professions—a bureaucracy that takes the best and brightest immigrants years to navigate.
Johnson has a track record. The governor cut red tape and the number of government workers in New Mexico. He vetoed 750 bills and used a line-item veto to cut thousands of other items. He lowered New Mexico's taxes and balanced the budget while remaining popular with voters. Running as a Republican, he was elected to a second term in that Democratic state.
Now, as a Libertarian presidential candidate, he warns "the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy."
John McAfee calls government "corrupt" and "technologically illiterate." He says he'll push a policy of "privacy, freedom and technology."
McAfee says, "Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make." He's had a few brushes with the law himself, including an arrest for driving under the influence, so he knows what it's like to be in the government's crosshairs.
Like economist Milton Friedman, he says that we can't have open borders and a big welfare state—so McAfee says get rid of the welfare state and open the borders, so long as immigrants submit to being documented.
He wants to reduce government's domestic role to policing disputes and otherwise let people engage in trade, including drug sales. He says our military role overseas should be reduced so that we interfere less in the affairs of other nations.
Austin Petersen, like many libertarians, describes himself as "fiscally conservative and socially tolerant." He proposes a 1 percent spending reduction in all government programs and a simple flat tax, and he would let young people opt out of Social Security.
Like Johnson and McAfee, he wants to reduce immigration bureaucracy, the drug war and military interventions. Unlike some Libertarians, Petersen says he is pro-life.
You might be surprised to hear that there is division among Libertarians on issues like abortion. This Friday and next you can watch how these candidates handle the differences.
On Facebook and Twitter, viewers told me they want to know how Libertarians would reduce the welfare state, defeat terrorism and help workers cope with changes caused by global trade.
I'm sure the Libertarians' answers will make more sense than those we hear from Trump and Clinton.
COPYRIGHT 2016 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.
-
Definitely voting for the LP nominee. the fact that all the remaining candidates are so damn unlikable helps him get to 5%. I mean I know he won't win but is it that hard to pull 5% from Hillary fucking Clinton and a reality tv star DONALD TRUMP. We might have a chance this go around. Say what you will about drone murdering brown people Obama was a likable guy. These people are not
-
Obama likeable? Narcissistic personality disorders are NOT likable people, by any measure.
-
I think likability is something that has to be determined empirically. And a lot of people do seem to like him. Of course most of them don't actually know him. But as much of a mystery as it may be to you or me, his public persona, at least, does seem to be likable.
-
The first time I laid eyes on him and heard him speak the hair on the back of my neck went up. I guess this is why 'likable' is subjective.
-
Racist!
-
I mean if you look deeper at what he actually does, he is not likeable and his whole persona kinda falls apart as fake but if you just throw on a few debates and watch the news now and then he seems a lot more genuine than a Clinton or a Cruz. Consider the fact that a grumpy old man who mostly just complains is seen as the most likeable this go around.
-
I would use the term "charismatic" over "likable", but I do not disagree.
-
My previous impression of Petersen was that he is an insufferable asshole. But I am willing to give him another chance. McAfee has a lot of baggage, but I have never heard him talk. GayJay is good to great, when he doesn't fumble on an issue by speaking before thinking about it. GayJay is my top choice out of these three by far.
I hope Reason posts this debate.
-
Why "GayJay?" "GarJay" or "GeeJay" would be more likely.
Is this some kind of ......well, we would once call it a slur.
Kevin R
-
If the Libertarian Party Candidate can't accept freedom of speech, he would be unfit for the job.
-
Because "Gay Jay" rhymes. Don't you know anything about politics?
-
Have you never heard of Ray Jay Johnson? It's a play on that.
-
I can't wait for the debate on April 1st, and will vote for whomever is the nominee. I want Gary Johnson to win, I feel he has the best chance to get people from outside the party to vote for him. Mainly because he has held public office before, unlike McAfee and Petersen. Which I feel adds a lot of credibility to Gary Johnson. Though you really can't go wrong with any of them, based on platform.
Gary Johnson 2016!!!
-
Good to see these guys starting to get some attention.
-
Agreed...well, except for McAfee - he's a loon.
-
I'm excited that they will definitely be talking about libertarian views on abortion because I've never understood how any libertarian could be anything less than fully pro-life, since, you know, life is necessary for liberty.
-
It's actually not difficult at all once you think about the issue.
The argument isn't about 'life' versus 'not life'. It's about individuation. When do you have a new instance of 'human being'. There is no human being at conception. There is potential, but a fetus is no more a human being than a pile of iron, wood, and power lines is a factory.
Economics has something to say about this as well -- we can solidify the argument by recourse to 'demonstrated preference'. Given a choice between saving 100 test-tubes with fertilized eggs or a single toddler, no one chooses to save the fertilized eggs. Yet they are 'human life' on the strong anti-abortion argument.
That said, my personal take on this is that the decision to abort is intensely and inherently personal, individual, and impossible for anyone other than those directly involved to decide. Everyone else really, seriously, needs to butt the hell out and leave the people involved alone until and unless they ask for input. -
That said, my personal take on this is that the decision to abort is intensely and inherently personal, individual, and impossible for anyone other than those directly involved to decide.
Odd, considering you just argued there's nothing human about it. It should be as personal as the decision to mow your lawn according to your "economics".
-
Nonsense. There is clearly a gray area here -- when *does* the fetus individuate?
All pro-life arguments I have seen boil down to the standard collectivist claim -- somebody is doing or might do something of which I do not approve and so I am justified in stopping them.
Note too that I did not make an economic argument. I used a solid evidentiary point from economics to support the position that no one really actually considers fetuses to be human beings of equal merit to babies or children.
Ultimately, it's nobody else's business -- you have no standing to interfere in the pregnant woman's choice.
If we do not own our bodies, we own nothing at all.
If others can enslave the mother in service of their own inconsistent views on personhood, what stops them from enslaving doctors and nurses to provide 'free medical care' to all? -
no one really actually considers fetuses to be human beings of equal merit to babies or children
---------------------------------
That's not entirely true. If I get drunk and now down a pregnant lady who loses her baby, I'm on the hook for vehicular manslaughter same as if I'd killed an adult or child. When it comes to crimes against humanity, a fetus in most states is considered the same as a child.
-
To extend your own "counter-argument" -- my position is that you don't get to tell me when or whether to cut my grass.
Yours is that you do.
Which one of us is the slaver? -
So nobody who disagrees with you has thought about the issue? Go fuck yourself.
There is no human being at conception - in your opinion. You left that part out.
In what scenario would someone be faced with the decision to save 100 test tube babies vs. a toddler? Some sort of chemical fire at the test tube baby factory on bring your daughter to work day? This scenario is similar to the "would you put a gun in the mouth of an infant Hitler and pull the trigger?" scenario.
Also, the NAP has nothing to do with collectivism. If you believe that a fetus is a human life, then it very well may be the proper role of government to intervene, just as they would intervene if I tried to kill my son.
I'm really not trying to wade into the pro-life/pro-abortion debate, but your arguments are both insulting and not particularly compelling.
-
Shut the fuck up.
-
I believe this is a topic which divides libertarians. IMHO, the world would be a better place if every pregnant woman had their baby and loved it and cared for it. But I think the world would be a much worse place if the government interfered in the pregnancy of every woman. I’d rather live in a world where the government does not interfere, even if I don’t like the outcome.
-
Nicely put.
-
I'm never excited when anyone talks about abortion because it has been discussed to fucking death and no one is ever going to change their mind on it.
-
the abortion debate is actually pretty unsettled with libertarians. that is because the question comes down to when a fetus is given rights, and at what points do those rights supplant the mother's. pretty much the same as it is in the rest of the public. i like the 100 test tube scenario Shirley gives... it really underscores the fact that everyone does see a fetus as less than, even they do see it as fundamentally a person. (i doubt you will find many who would kill a child to save 100 fetuses) it is about where you draw the line to call the fetus a person.
the reason that both sides of the spectrum in this question reside in the libertarian community... those who view this strongly enough to make it central to their voting choices have already picked sides. (abortion will not be going away any time soon... so that is a truly wasted vote) the rest of us see it as a generally settled matter, where the focus should be on keeping it from changing further one way or the other (depending on where you fall on the spectrum). whether you believe in not making the rules harder to navigate for women, or not using taxpayer money to pay for abortions... both positions can exist in the general libertarian viewpoint.
-
If you want my two cents (which I don't blame you for ignoring if you do), it comes down to having a functioning cerebral cortex. Simply being living and having human DNA don't seem important by themselves since people who are brain-dead can be kept alive and they certainly have human DNA. On the other side, things like heartbeats, spinal reflexes, respiration, and noses are purely superficial and are things that even animals have. So when the fetus develops a functioning, linked-up cerebral cortex, that seems like a good cut off point which is around 25 weeks or something. And note that a person who suffers brain trauma may regain the use of their cerebral cortex, but a zygote, embryo, early fetus don't have a cerebral cortex and clearly can't regain the use of one. Carl Sagan wrote an article and made this argument--it convinced me.
Another line of thinking is that, as an analogy, a water molecule isn't a whirlpool and a piece of hay isn't a hay stack. Likewise I don't see why a zygote should have protection against force since it doesn't have a functioning cerebral cortex (and it won't regain the use of one it already has). Sure, it has human DNA, is living, and could continue to develop a new cerebral cortex, but so what?
-
"If you want my two cents (which I don't blame you for ignoring if you do), it comes down to having a functioning cerebral cortex."
This is my position.
-
As a Libertarian, I see no other option than to be "pro-choice", since, you know, being pro-liberty means allowing individuals to make their own choices. (For the record, I am anti-abortion, except for cases of rape and incest. That is my choice.)
-
1.) GayJay. 2.) McAfee 3.)-while hating the smug prick- Petersen 4.) Almanian! (Sorry, Bro) 5.)Write in Rand ........319millionth.) Trump
Second to Last.) Bernie Last.) HillaryI'd put myself around the 256 millionth just because I wouldn't trust my self around the nuclear football while scrolling Facebook.
-
I wouldn't trust my self around the nuclear football while scrolling Facebook.
Hah! I love my friends but I'm astounded at how little thinking even the intelligent ones use before posting on FB.
-
If I could vote, I'd probably go
1) Jacket
2) Johnson
3) Almanian!
4) Warty Hugeman
5) Earthquake 14267 Chipper Shredder with 212cc 4-Cycle Viper Engine
6) Harold & Kumar
7) the hand ruffling Rand Paul's boyish curls
8) Rand Paul's boyish curls
9) some churros
10) McAfee -
Aren't Antipodians required to vote?
-
Yes, but only for my own undistinguished pack of timeservers, scoundrels and lunatics. For some reason the USA does not even solicit my opinion, let alone mandate it. Bewildering, isn't it?
-
With regards to mandated voting, Is it really participation if the apathy vote is such a large bloc?
-
No, and there's a major practical argument against compulsory voting right there.
-
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Or something.
-
I vote for the churros. Churros 2016!!!
-
Sorry, John, Trump's my guy-- along with any anti-choice, gay marriage bigot warmonger the RP puts before me for Congress. Sorry, again.
-
Cool story, actual racist shitbag. Suck a prick, racist.
-
Triggered -
"Anti choice, gay....warmonger"
Yeah yeah, you're voting for Hillary. Tell us something we don't already know -
I am suddenly reminded of this:
-
I gotta find a better version, I think that one cuts off too soon.
Too bad audio still isn't working.
-
I'm glad he's in the race just for the penis jokes.
Feel the Johnson 2016!
-
I hate that I feel some hope.
-
the fear of disappointment.
-
No Almanian? No Cthulhu? No SMOD? Not even a William Henry Harrison? The LP isn't being very responsive to the voters, I'd say. Oh well - which candidate is promising free woodchippers?
-
Almanian is an independant, and Cthulhu is running on the Elder Party line.
-
I would demand to know his VP pick?
Wait, too soon?
-
"Howard Johnson is right about Olson Johnson being right."
-
Johnson's doing better?
Does that mean he loses by 45% rather than 49%?
-
Scenario:
A third party pulls, thanks to widespread disenchantment [disgust] with the nominated candidates, enough votes to prevent either Republican or Democrat from garnering enough electoral votes to clinch the election. A classic spoiler.
Then, per 12th Amendment process, the election goes to the House of Representatives, currently under the leadership of Paul Ryan and Republicans [such as it is].
1st Question: So who will they appoint as POTUS?
2nd Question: Will the country even be able to tolerate it, or will protesters shut down the Interstate system?
3rd Question: Will we actually see rioting in the streets, or will it mostly be confined to Facebook [virtual riots]?
-
That's an interesting question - I know the answer would involve Trump suing and polls showing the majority of voters favoring a "fair" way of resolving the issue that doesn't involve following the Constitution (despite a few of us suggesting that this outcome is exactly how the FF intended the system to work).
-
It will most certainly be deemed white privilege and misogynistic; to be followed by a demand for BHO to appoint a successor.
-
To be fair, while that *is* exactly how the system was intended to work, it was designed in the 1700s before they even had the telegraph. It would be nearly a century before Babbage's census-counting machine would speed up the tallying processes.
So back then, a more Republic, less Democratic, system wasn't just a "good idea", it was practically necessary.
So yeah. That's exactly how it should work under the constitution, and anyone that complained about the House of Representatives giving the election to their nominee is would be a sore loser. That said, it'll be well within everyone's rights to complain that the system *should* be changed because we have better resources now then the founding fathers could have envisioned. Who knows, maybe such an event will be what finally gets enough states on-board with the National Popular Vote Compact.
-
Easy.
1) Paul Ryan becomes president. Justin Amash becomes House Speaker. Justin gets this role to get the Liberty/Tea Party caucus behind the Ryan coronation.
2) Yes of course its America and people love to protest.
3) Maybe a little bit but who the fuck is going to be that upset that Hitlary and Dump didn't win.
-
"They are Johnson (who?), software businessman John McAfee (This guy: http://www.wired.co.uk/magazin.....angerousan ) and The Libertarian Republic founder Austin Petersen (who?). The Party will choose its nominee at the Libertarian convention in Orlando, Florida, over Memorial Day weekend."
Whoever those people are, good luck to 'em. Has anyone heard about the latest Trump scandal? There must have been a dozen articles yesterday about it and last night Mark Levin spent 40 minutes talking about Trump's campaign manager touching a reporter one time.
-
Ugh. SF'd the link.
Here is the charming Mr. Mcafee: http://www.wired.co.uk/magazin...../dangerous
-
Is anyone going to the convention in Orlando? I'm going with my wife and my sister.
-
So... you +1 guest?
-
I knew that joke was coming.
-
Which is why you set it up.
-
I seriously considered writing sibling instead, but I figured the joke would come anyways.
-
Would the Oxford comma have helped?
-
Unfair to presume he married his sister.
It could be legit. Florida Hipster could be the tragic victim of a double homicide, a la Bruce Wayne, taken in by the girl next door's family. After a decade of exploring each other's bodies, his by-law sister could be his heartfelt paramour. Secretly, they could have been married in Fiji, under a waterfall.
And only we, the Reason commentariat, last bastion of free thought, know the truth.
-
A+, would read again.
-
I would actually like to go.
I went to the state convention once, twenty five years ago. I walked in the hall and saw a lot of purple hair, body peircings and smelled pot and patchouli. Ok, I thought, give 'em a chance...
Every speaker wanted their particular hobby horse given free rein and everyone else's tied to the post. Freedom for me but not thee was the general theme. I think the party has improved quite a bit since then so I would like to find out in person.
There is a decent chance that I might show up in Orlando.
-
Guess I'll be voting looneytarian*; just can't hold my nose tightly enough to actually cast a ballot for either Dem or Republican candidates.
*not that I wouldn't want them to win, it's just not at all likely in my lifetime, or any one else's for that matter; maybe best hope is for the scenario I laid out three comments above.
-
Stossel always seems bright to me, but if he assumes that the Libertarian candidate is going to get more than 11% of the vote, that certainly isn't very bright.
-
Stossel is plenty bright. It is just human nature to be optimistic when the storm is the darkest.
-
Every time I hear this guy's name in my mind I see Notch Johnson running out of the lifeguard headquarters yelling out "Has anyone seen my Johnson?!"
Then I think of the two lesbians with the taco stand on the beach.
I hate that that show ran it's course. The juvenile humor never got old for me.
-
Lesbians and tacos? Nice:)
-
Hand in her glove.
-
Are you saying that you would enjoy to #FeelTheJohnson? I mean lets work together and make the White House #FeelTheJohnson. How about Trump and Hillary can #FeelTheJohnson.
Sorry couldn't resist, it's one of Gary Johnson's hashtags. Makes me chuckle every time I use it, figured you might get a kick out of getting to #FeelTheJohnson as well.
-
You might be surprised to hear that there is division among Libertarians on issues like abortion.
I believe I speak for everybody here when I say that I'm shocked to discover this.
-
Have I mentioned I like Stossel?
-
Before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that...my... brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here ...
Clik This Link inYour Browser
www.JobToday60.com -
The image that accompanies this article is unfortunate.
The sign Gary's making with his two fingers is a variation of "fuck off" to most Brits (usually they say something like "jog off" and give you this sign). It's a representation of the vagina.
-
The US hasn't given a shit about the Brits for 240 years.
-
+1 this made me laugh.
-
Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.net-jobs25.com -
Is it safe to assume the LP delegates elect the VP nominee as well - as they did in 2008 when I ran? (And I would've won had the LP not changed the rules literally in the middle of the night.)
If this is still the case, John, how about talking about and with them too?
-
This election is proof we are actually all figments in a Hunter S. Thompson fever dream. Wake up, Hunter!!!!!
-
Right off the bat, we already have an immigration background check. It's quite complex really. You can read about it by Googling "How Immigration Background Checks Work"
As to having a job, etc...Having brought my British 'wife to be' over here in the 80's, I'll tell you.. that was a problem. I had just arrived before her, and had to get a job..any job ..In my case, digging ditches, before they'd give her a Visa.
No limits on who or how many enter? Won't this put downward pressure on our citizen's salaries? I'm not talking 'the jobs Americans won;t do', but real jobs, like doctors, clerks, baristas, etc.
So, he claims to have done some wonderful things for N.M. Aside from a marked increase in natural gas production, I don't find anything. In fact, if you look at this chart, job growth is horrible!
http://www.riograndefoundation.....ayroll.jpg
Somehow, about 1/2 way through the article, we lost track of what Johnson stands for and segued into the lunatic ramblings of McAffee and some guy named Peterson. Is Johnson letting these 2 speak for him? If this what he would do, (the oft mentioned 'Flat Tax', killing SS and opening the borders to all) then I'd never vote for him.
-
Won't this put downward pressure on our citizen's salaries?
No.
It will allow Mommy and Daddy to pay a nanny to watch Junior, while Mommy resumes her more productive job of being a doctor.
Money is not equivalent to wealth. Jobs are not equivalent to productive labor.
