3002
3003

Request[AMA Request] Gary Johnson (self.IAmA)

Frylick が 投稿

Hi u/GovGaryJohnson,

I know you're probably busy doing all you can to hit that 15% mark within the next 3 weeks. I really think this can help you out if you have the time, and let your voters really know what's up!

Here are my 5 questions:

  1. If there was one issue the election boiled down to, what would it be and why do we vote Johnson/Weld?

  2. Discrimination and racism. We all know they're here, and we have yet to hear a meaningful and engaging conversation on the issues. At the start of the month you said you've "learned your head was in the sand" from the BLM movement. This is the dialogue we need. Candidates who can admit both their personal shortcomings and the government's. Can you offer your more insight into how your campaign addresses issues of race? Does this include unique responses to the different types of discrimination, i.e. immigration vs racism against black people vs islamophobia.

  3. Where are some of the first places you hope to decrease wasteful spending? If there going to be a strong focus of overlap on reduction in military campaigns and reduction in wasteful spending? How do you think this will impact both the real and perceived growth of terror cells and instability in the Middle East?

  4. Is there a plan to reform higher education and make it more accessible? Is there a stronger focus to invigorate the current model of higher education, or expand to include more vocational tracts and alternative educational paths?

  5. What financial model would accompany the campaign's position on the legalization of marijuana? If this policy is also intended to help make effective criminal justice reform, will tax dollars collected be put to rehabilitation programs for those who have been impacted by the criminalization of marijuana? Stopping a problem is one thing, but does your campaign have a plan to aid those who have already been wronged by criminalization?

I think you two are a real power-house ticket who just needs a platform to get your message out. You got my support!

上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]liberationation 296ポイント297ポイント  (5子コメント)

u/teamgov has already said there is one in the works

EDIT holy shit this blew up

[–]DeusXEqualsOne 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

Typical Government

Edit! /s

[–]thrillerjesus 17ポイント18ポイント  (3子コメント)

He's done several in the past, and honestly, they've been hugely disappointing. Full of the most politician-y non-answers you could imagine.

[–]liberationation 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Maybe we can get some clarification on a few of his more mediocre responses

[–]thrillerjesus 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I hope so. I've heard a couple of his recent interviews, in which he talks about how during his previous runs he's allowed himself and his campaign efforts to be "managed" far too much. And he does seem a lot more focused and direct than before.

But we'll see. I'm a voter who is open to being persuaded by him, but his past efforts have failed spectacularly to persuade me.

[–]lastresort08 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Trump's was far far worse.

[–]ChillyCheese 227ポイント228ポイント  (211子コメント)

Any change in stance of vaccinations?

https://twitter.com/govgaryjohnson/status/113419678730301440

I realize that mandatory anything doesn't line up with Libertarian ideals, and in general I agree. However, liberty is in part about being able to do what you want, as long as it doesn't harm others. Refusing vaccination does harm others by removing herd immunity. This sentiment could cause a significant part of a generation to be lost to preventable disease, including those who had no say in the matter (those who medically can't get vaccinated).

I'm not a single issue voter on much, but encouraging the anti-vaccination crowd is more than I could stomach.

Edit: I guess I should clarify... I'd like to know what his overall stance on vaccinations is. I, too, don't believe you should be thrown in solitary confinement, or restrain people into forced vaccination. I want to know whether Mr. Johnson think vaccines work, should be promoted to the fullest extent the government can do so, deny public school to unvaccinated children, etc.

His comment spawned a lot of anti-vaxx response on Twitter and other places I've seen, and since I haven't seen anything further from him, I'm concerned he agrees with those sentiments.

[–]sadistmushroom 68ポイント69ポイント  (29子コメント)

A lot of libertarians believe vaccination should be mandatory because by not vaccinating you're intentionally harming others. Even some near anarchist libertarians still see this as a violation of the NAP.

[–]nlp49 15ポイント16ポイント  (9子コメント)

What is NAP?

[–]TheWastelandWizard 35ポイント36ポイント  (0子コメント)

Non-Aggression Principal, a core tenet to Libertarian ideals.

[–]357Magnum 21ポイント22ポイント  (5子コメント)

the Non Aggression Principle. basically, the initiation of force against someone's person or property is wrong. it is the bedrock principle of most libertarian thought. you can do anything that doesn't hurt anyone else (or their property), and many if not most government action violates the NAP in that the state is the institutionalization of violence and coercion. Examples: getting locked up for victimless crimes, being taxed for things you don't want the government to do, etc.

[–]tsilb 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

The initiation of force or coearsion. Also covers his anti-war stance.

コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

    [–]dlrepublic 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Non Aggression Principle. Basically, don't hurt people or take their things. Life, liberty, and personal property rights.

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      [–]Geaux12 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

      anarchist libertarians

      Something tells me these folks don't have much in common with the CNT-FAI of Orwell's time, much less Iain M. Banks' Culture.

      [–]Stereotype_Apostate 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      An extension of this is why I support socialized Healthcare even though I lean libertarian on most other things.

      コメントをもっと表示する (17 返事)

        [–]SpyingIsWrong 12ポイント13ポイント  (10子コメント)

        Refusing vaccination does harm others by removing herd immunity.

        For better or worse, libertarian ideology is generally concerned with positive liberties (i.e. "freedom to..."). What you're talking about is a negative liberty ("freedom from disease").

        I believe the reason for this is because basically anything can be phrased as a negative liberty (removing free speech is just giving people freedom from bigotry, for instance). In this case, choosing to not get vaccinated is not directly causing physical harm to another party, so it doesn't fall under the non-aggression principle.

        I personally loathe anti-vaxxers but fully support the right of individuals to refuse mandatory injections.

        EDIT: As /u/Coveo pointed out, I had the names backwards; positive liberty corresponds to "freedom from" while negative liberty corresponds to "freedom to".

        [–]Coveo 15ポイント16ポイント  (2子コメント)

        You actually have it backwards. Libertarians primarily concern themselves with negative liberty, freedom from external restraints--say, the freedom of speech. Positive liberty refers to things such as the right to be provided education, or as you say freedom from disease.

        [–]SpyingIsWrong 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Thanks so much for the correction! Haven't used these terms in a while and got them mixed up :)

        [–]Dewars_Signature 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

        Bigotry doesn't physically harm or kill the victim.

        Disease does. Is it legal to give someone else HIV without telling them?

        [–]SpyingIsWrong 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

        That's a good point. I was sort of making two separate points in my post, which I didn't explain too well. The first is that any sort of political ideology can be phrased as a "freedom from". The second is that refusing a vaccine is not a direct act of violence. Instead, it is part of a collection of events that, in the big picture, increase the chance of people getting harmful diseases. This sort of consequentialism is how most of us operate day-to-day, but when talking about deciding laws, it's not really substantial enough (at least in my view).

        So, here is an example that might be a little more interesting to you: mandatory sterilization of anyone with a heritable disease. Is it legal to give your kids a disease without telling them or obtaining consent?

        [–]Exaskryz 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Actually, no, it is not legal to give someone HIV which can then result in AIDS without telling them. Or any STI for that matter, so long as you are aware of the diagnosis

        [–]Dewars_Signature 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I know it's not.

        I was hinting at "freedom from disease" not being something that laws should be made against, yet this law exists to give me freedom from HIV.

        コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

          [–]space_is_fun 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

          This is a good question, but why is this such an important issue for people?

          Seriously, how many Americans die each year because others aren't vaccinated? This is such a small issue compared to war, the economy, immigration, etc. etc. etc. This should be like the 50th most important position of a candidate.

          [–]mcguirk86 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Honest question, how does removing herd immunity harm anybody? Wouldn't people who get vaccines still be immune? The only people who would be vulnerable to disease would be those that choose not to vaccine, correct?

          [–]ChillyCheese 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Some people are medically not able to vaccinate. As well, vaccinations are not 100% effective against continued repeat exposure, so if there's an outbreak of a disease against which you have been vaccinated, over time the likelihood you'll contract the disease increases.

          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

            [–]Kelend 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

            Libertarians are very pro body rights and they are fairly consistent on that issue.

            Refusing vaccination does harm others

            And Pro-lifers say that having an abortion harms the fetus.

            If we want people to have full control over their bodies, and what goes in them, then we cannot arbitrarily draw the line.

            The way to fight the anti-vaccine crowd is with education and public awareness.

            [–]mastawyrm 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

            Sure but the argument is that a fetus isn't a person any more than the unfertilized eggs are. No pro-choice person is actually advocating harming a baby...

            コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

              [–]DarkLasombra 26ポイント27ポイント  (104子コメント)

              No one should ever be forced into medical procedures they don't want to do. I am 100% for vaccinations, but forcing people to do it is crossing the line.

              Refusing vaccination does harm others by removing herd immunity.

              With this line of reasoning would you hold people who don't wash their hands or use condoms responsible for cold/flu and STI deaths? Would you support laws requiring condoms and handwashing?

              Thanks for the immediate downvotes, but try to respond and actually engage in conversation.

              Edit: I think many people are making some emotional assumption that I am against vaccinations.

              I believe in vaccinations 100%. I have current on all vaccinations. I will vaccinate my children.

              I am just against the government telling me I have to undergo mandatory medical procedures or else I am a criminal.

              The only compelling argument I have heard is that it may constitute child endangerment to not vaccinate. But as I said, I would need a scientific consensus on that. And I highly doubt the risk of infection is great enough to be considered endangerment.

              [–]hei_luobo 133ポイント134ポイント  (5子コメント)

              You won't get STIs from someone you don't have sex with; outside of rape (which is illegal anyways) or someone lying about their diseases (also illegal in some states IIRC), it is your choice to take a risk by having unprotected sex with someone.

              Handwashing is required of people working in food service and some other jobs.

              Seeing as unvaccinated people can spread diseases to others who are not choosing to associate with the ill, I think this is a false equivalency.

              [–]Kyrgyzstan24 19ポイント20ポイント  (14子コメント)

              Honestly, probably not with either (maybe with condoms?) , and definitely increase the awareness of handwashing but it's too difficult to hold someone responsible, unlike in the case of vaccinations.

              [–]PopsicleJesus 16ポイント17ポイント  (25子コメント)

              This is so vastly different. With vaccinations we've all but eliminated several diseases whose bacterial or viral sources still exist. Without them, not only could those diseases return to children who otherwise could be spared, but it makes it likelier that the kids who couldn't be vaccinated for legitimate reasons will get sick because the herd immunity is compromised. Herd immunity is actually the most important function of mass immunization, not individual.

              To that point, the freedom to make choices needs to be tethered by personal and societal responsibility. Or are we so naively in support of freedom that we would trust freedom alone to carry us?

              [–]PM-ME-SEXY-CHEESE 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

              With vaccinations we've all but eliminated several diseases whose bacterial or viral sources still exist.

              and we did so with voluntary vaccines why do you think this isn't working?

              [–]BurntPaper 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

              Voluntary vaccines worked so well because everyone had seen first-hand what these diseases could do. The diseases have been defeated for so long that younger generations have no idea what it's like to see a kid in an Iron Lung.

              But now we literally have a movement of idiots that are against vaccinations spreading propaganda and lies. To the best of my knowledge, we didn't have that back in the day when we were initially fighting to eliminate these diseases.

              We have direct opposition, and we have a society that doesn't understand exactly how serious these things are. That's why mandatory vaccinations may be necessary to ensure our safety.

              [–]PM-ME-SEXY-CHEESE 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

              So fear mongering because it could happen. We are not anywhere near even 1990 levels of these diseases. We can and are fighting these diseases successfully to a degree our parents and their parents could only dream of. Entirely with voluntary vaccines we have 91.5% vaccination. That is awesome, could it be better? Surely do we need to give the government the right to determine what goes in your body to make it better? Hardly.

              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                [–]aStarving0rphan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                The people who voluntarily vaccinated saw the horrors of what those diseases did to their friends and family growing up. No one who is not vaccinating their kids never saw a friend die from polio or TB

                コメントをもっと表示する (20 返事)

                  [–]More_Momus 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  See I'm in the weird position of being libertarian on the whole, but also being a practicing healthcare professional.

                  This is probably the area of biggest internal debate for me given that it steps on so many of the things I believe in.

                  The way I rationalize it is the following:

                  • Lack of vaccination can harm others (I won't go so far as saying does as that implies certainty...but it's still a really really really bad idea not to be vaccinated)
                  • That being said, a ability of a parent to choose for their child (even if it is a scientifically bad choice) should be protected.
                  • So the only way I can reconcile the two is that the child, as unfortunate of a response as this is, must be home schooled, cannot attend any daycare/extracurricular activities/sports where they could come into contact with another child, vaccinated or not. If the parent chooses not to vaccinate their child for moral reasons, then the child has to, unfortunately, be treated as if they have an active infection.
                  • The best we can hope for is that at which ever age local law permits a child to make their own healthcare decisions (which can be quite young), they are educated by their healthcare provider and choose to get vaccinations for themselves and be allowed to re-enter with other kids

                  I feel like this would cause social harm to the child whose parents decide to morally object. However, with regards to the question of greater good, the potential of infecting a child who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons versus moral reasons, priority should be given to the one who has no control over the decision.

                  [–]qwinc 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  That being said, a ability of a parent to choose for their child (even if it is a scientifically bad choice) should be protected.

                  Why should the parent be allowed to make proven bad choices for the child? They are endangering their child's health/life by not having it vaccinated. That's where the argument falls apart for me. I think it should be treated as negligence.

                  [–]BlackScienceJesus 7ポイント8ポイント  (15子コメント)

                  I don't think this line of reasoning is the same as vaccination. Cold/Flu can be spread a number of ways not just because someone didn't wash their hands. And with STDs you assume the risk of that when you agree to intercourse without protection. However with vaccination those that do not get vaccines are endangering others without those people assuming the risk and with the only real way for them to contract these diseases is by you refusing to get a vaccination. Or of course if they traveled to another country, but again in doing so they'd be assuming the risk of contracting a disease there.

                  [–]liberty2016 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

                  Even if we agree that people should be vaccinated, why is the default means by which we achieve this ends using force?

                  Why not simply run a positive education campaign on the benefits of vaccination, and then pay people a token amount for their time and effort, say $10, to go get vaccinated?

                  We can give people a small amount of cash to compensate them for the perceived risk and time of getting vaccinated, and promote vaccination by creating a positive financial incentive rather than through negative reinforcement and punishment.

                  [–]slthomp2 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  Any major public health official will tell you that educational campaigns are some of the least effective things you could do relative to cost :(

                  There are other solutions to legal mandate, just putting that out there

                  [–]liberty2016 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  I am not advocating for solely an educational campaign.

                  I am advocating for an education campaign + financial incentives as a single combined proposal.

                  Education + financial incentives has had an extremely large impact on smoking rates.

                  If $10 is not an effective reward, then raise the price to $20.

                  The problem with only using negative incentives and force is that people will invent reasons to explain why it must not be in their self interst to get vaccinated voluntarily which leads to the promotion of anti-vax conspiracy theories, which would otherwise not exist to nearly the same degree in a voluntary environment.

                  [–]El-HaaK 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  That is great in theory, but many of the people who are refusing (not all) would not be moved by positive financial incentives because of the small effect that would have on their overall finances.

                  An awesome satirical video that demonstrates this is from the daily show where Samantha Bee interviewed some anti-vaxxers.

                  Daily Show - Vaccines

                  [–]liberty2016 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  There would be substantially less anti-vax conspiracies being spread in a more voluntary policy environment when people are not being forced to do something against their will.

                  Additionally, the reward offered can be raised from $10 to $20 to $30, according to a cost benefit analysis equation where we target the benefits gained from a suitably large herd immunity effect.

                  There will always be diminishing returns and hardcore anti-vax holdouts who would not receive vaccinations even for $1000, but it is not necessary to achieve 100% vaccinations levels in order for society to acquire a robust herd immunity effect and reduce the projected harm caused by outbreaks by a signifant factor.

                  [–]lonnie123 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  And when that doesn't work?

                  [–]liberty2016 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  You raise the price from $10 to $20, and perform a cost benefit analysis to empirically determine the appropriate level of compensation necessary to induce a large enough proportion of the population needed to achieve a sizable herd immunity effect.

                  [–]DarkLasombra 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

                  We encourage behavior that is beneficial to the health of individuals and those around them, but we don't dictate it with laws. This opens the doors to terribly invasive legislation once medical advancements like genetic engineering becomes more available. What happens when we can alter babies to have immunity against lots of diseases? Then while 90% of people want it mandated, the 10% of people that don't want their genes messed with are forced to do it because of precedent. The right of body autonomy outweighs your right to a life completely free of risk, unfortunately.

                  [–]sizko_89 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  Dat there slippery slope trope.

                  [–]DarkLasombra 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  It may be a trope, but it is absolutely true when it comes to legislation the strips liberties or invades privacy, especially the last 15 years.

                  [–]rainzer 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Then what is the purpose of a libertarian government? Herd immunity is a public good. The responsibility of government should be to provide public goods. It would be the dividing line between a libertarian government and anarchy. Otherwise, your strictly binary definition of freedom and body autonomy makes having a government at all under libertarianism pointless.

                  Arguing a hypothetical slippery slope of Deus Ex Human Revolution superhuman baby gene alteration is absurd.

                  [–]slthomp2 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Not to be nitpicky, but immunity to infectious agents is largely through antibodies, which vaccines work on. You can engineer out susceptibility to genetic (non-infectious) diseases and to some degree susceptibility to certain infectious outcomes (e.g. the whole malaria-sickle cell thing) but vaccines are still going to be a better fit for other stuff because they're more practical and can adapt better to change

                  [–]BlackScienceJesus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  I would agree with this. I was only pointing out that your line of reasoning and comparisons above didn't seem to fit to me. They are different situations that shouldn't be compared directly.

                  [–]flintforfire 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  I feel like vaccinations should be mandatory only if the child is going to school. If you want to home school your kid, I don't see them endangering other kids.

                  [–]DarkLasombra 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  I personally approve of requiring vaccinations to attend public schools. That's where my line sits. I just don't approve of making people that chose to not undergo certain optional preventative health measures be made into criminals.

                  [–]NoSpicyFood 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

                  No one should ever be forced into medical procedures they don't want to do. I am 100% for vaccinations, but forcing people to do it is crossing the line.

                  I'm not on board with this view, but it's consistent with libertarianism. It also reveals where a lot of redditors will pick and choose what they want to believe. Vaccinations? Make them mandatory! Circumcision? That's wrong because it violates bodily autonomy! Of course, they both violate bodily autonomy. No one has to favor both or disfavor both, but if they want to support one but not the other, the argument from bodily autonomy is not their friend.

                  [–]jseliger 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  No one should ever be forced into medical procedures they don't want to do. I am 100% for vaccinations, but forcing people to do it is crossing the line.

                  It is not crossing the line: not getting vaccinations has serious externalities involved, which is why most governments mandate them. The same is true of, for example, seat belts: not using them creates substantial externalities in the form of EMS workers, hospitals, and the like, in addition to the risk of death or disability for the person who doesn't wear a seat belt.

                  Freedom and independence matters, but so does creating a humane society, and vaccines and seatbelts are part of that. You do not get to turn yourself into a human biological missile because you are too ignorant to get a vaccine.

                  [–]ContraPositive 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  Vaccinations largely target diseases that can be destroyed entirely as long as everyone gets vaccinated. The efficacy of a vaccine increases as more people get vaccinated. When people don't get vaccinated they put others at risk unnecessary, and allow the disease to exist in the wild unnecessary. This is dissimilar from flu and cold, because those diseases cannot be eradicated from the wild with current technology. It's different from STIs because that's a wide swath of diseases, some deadly, some with vaccines, some relatively harmless, and so on.

                  If I refuse malaria vaccines, I can infect random unvaccinated people (mostly children) with malaria, and I keep wild malaria active in the US where it could potentially mutate. I can't infect random people with an STI, and if we assume I'm responsible I'll only infect consenting people with an STI or use protection after discovering I have one. I can infect random people with a cold, but theres not much to be done about that and that disease will always be wild. The flu is actually a good comparison, every one should be vaccinated for the flu every year.

                  [–]DarkLasombra 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  The flu is actually a good comparison, every one should be vaccinated for the flu every year.

                  I agree, but should it be mandated by law? Should we all be forced to have a flu vaccination or be fined/jailed?

                  [–]ContraPositive 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  IDK if I'd go that far, but giving a tax credit for getting a flu shot would make sense.

                  Because there are so many flu strains, we don't currently have the capability to destroy it in the wild. So there is less value in flu vaccinations. Meanwhile, we have nearly eradicated polio in the wild world wide. The only things threatening to keep polio active in the wild are really tough political situations, and anti-vaxxers. If we are able to eradicate polio world wide, then in the future vaccinations will be an almost superfluous safety measure. Flu mutates too quickly for a similar strategy to be viable.

                  [–]HowardColvin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  But,by refusing vaccination,you are making it more difficult to achieve herd immunity in a region.

                  If enough people decide to not vaccinate themselves or their children in a region,this might even lead to a situation where the condition for herd immunity cannot be achieved in that region.

                  Ergo,you are harming others by refusing to get vaccinated.

                  [–]RagingOrangutan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  With this line of reasoning would you hold people who don't wash their hands or use condoms responsible for cold/flu and STI deaths? Would you support laws requiring condoms and handwashing?

                  Actually yes. If you have an STI and you don't disclose this to a partner and infect them, this is illegal in many jurisdictions. Rightfully so, in my opinion.

                  The only compelling argument I have heard is that it may constitute child endangerment to not vaccinate. But as I said, I would need a scientific consensus on that. And I highly doubt the risk of infection is great enough to be considered endangerment.

                  http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/03/25/unsurprisingly_the_children_of_anti_vaxxers_are_the_biggest_victims_of_measles.html

                  [–]BurntPaper 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  I'm torn on the matter. On one hand, I'm a fan of limited government in most ways. I'm not so far to one side that I think taxation is theft, but in most ways, I want government to have a limited hold over my life as long as I'm not causing harm.

                  But with this issue, I think mandatory vaccines (For those that can safely be vaccinated, because there are medical conditions which place undue risk on the one receiving the vaccination.) would be for the greater good. It's shitty to be forced to do anything by the government, but it would be shittier to have Polio spread like it did not far back in history.

                  Vaccinations are such a huge boost to our health as a society that it's dangerously irresponsible to forego vaccines without a really good reason. It puts everyone at risk. Compromising herd immunity gives disease a foothold, and it can spread rapidly once it has one.

                  Keep in mind, that the danger isn't only to the child that isn't immunized. The danger is to society. Immunizations aren't 100% effective, and some people have legitimate medical issues that make it too dangerous for them to be immunized, and some people have immune system problems. Those people would all be protected by herd immunity if everyone that is able is vaccinated. Skipping vaccinations goes far beyond child endangerment.

                  コメントをもっと表示する (25 返事)

                    コメントをもっと表示する (53 返事)

                      [–]adambuck66 105ポイント106ポイント  (118子コメント)

                      I would like to know exactly which "entitlement" programs he intends to cut and what those recipients are supposed to do after the cuts.

                      [–]aschsr 30ポイント31ポイント  (25子コメント)

                      His tax plan has a UBI built in

                      [–]mechanical_animal 25ポイント26ポイント  (5子コメント)

                      A prebate is not a UBI, you need to give people actual purchasing power that puts them at minimum on the level of a living wage.

                      [–]lastresort08 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

                      This is the closest we have come to a UBI in the recent history. Yes, it is not a full on UBI, but it is a step in the right direction.

                      [–]mechanical_animal 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

                      No it isn't. Adjusting the legal min wage to the livable wage is a step in the right direction. Decreasing the employment rate is a step in the right direction. Addressing the predominance of part time work is a step in the right direction.

                      All this does is say OK you don't owe us anything until you're able to pay. Except we already have this, currently people who make under a certain economic threshold don't have to file income taxes. So that portion of the fair tax plan is useless, and definitely not UBI so don't say it is. The real takeaway is that this consumption based tax system is going to put the poor at a disadvantage because the poor spend a larger percentage of their income on consumable goods and services.

                      [–]nielsbulskov 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      Woah, woah, woah. You're starting by saying that you need to give people real purchasing power, and then you're propping up policy that simply destroys purchasing power? Please explain.

                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                        [–]NicCage420 4ポイント5ポイント  (13子コメント)

                        About $500/month, yes?

                        [–]Zerd85 29ポイント30ポイント  (11子コメント)

                        Which does not cover basic necessities, something a UBI is typically designed to cover.

                        [–]NicCage420 17ポイント18ポイント  (6子コメント)

                        Yeah, from my understanding his UBI is more to offset his proposed 30% sales tax.

                        [–]Zerd85 35ポイント36ポイント  (5子コメント)

                        So a Fair Tax to replace the income tax.

                        In reality this penalizes families that make < $45,000 a year (I'm considering a "family" to be a 4 person household for the sake of this discussion).

                        Under that amount, the family typically has no tax burden. They may have some taken out of each paycheck because of what they claim for tax purposes, however when they actually file, they will end up getting additional money back because of the EIC, that is MORE than the tax burden.

                        Removal of the IRS, and instituting the Fair Tax would remove the EIC, so unless there is some type of scale on his UBI, so that $500 is the minimum and it scales up by household size, this would be devastating to low income Americans.

                        [–]zaphodbeebIebrox 36ポイント37ポイント  (4子コメント)

                        Not to mention that on top of this, low income families typically spend every penny they earn on goods. While things like rent are tax free, they're spending all their disposable income at a 30% tax rate. Conversely, rich people, or even upper middle class people, are able to take a good portion of their money and save it. A truly rich person might spend 40% of their disposable income, leaving them an effective tax rate of 12% on disposable income compared to the poor person spending 30%. So not only are they paying taxes they wouldn't have to pay in the current system, they're actually paying at a higher tax rate than those who are capable of saving money.

                        Sales tax is an extremely regressive tax, especially if it becomes the main means of collecting taxes.

                        [–]spacing_out_in_space 17ポイント18ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        You can't make this argument without mentioning the prebate, which is an integral part of the Fair Tax plan and is designed to address this issue.

                        [–]PM-ME-SEXY-CHEESE 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Yeah they can they are trying to discredit it.

                        [–]PsychedSy 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Prebate and fair taxes don't apply to used goods. So you'd just be stuck with state sales tax.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                          コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                            [–]aschsr 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            i dont recall the exact number but it would be a lot more than that

                            [–]Anthro_Fascist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                            Shouldn't we wait until the robots supplant us?

                            コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                              [–]StevenTheSloth 16ポイント17ポイント  (40子コメント)

                              Its a common misconception that libertarians want to all out gut all entitlement programs off the bat.

                              First start with corporate welfare, and the last things to touch are ones which effect children.

                              The goal is to ween people off these programs overtime.

                              [–]OldManPhill 9ポイント10ポイント  (36子コメント)

                              Well first would be military spending really. Then we move to the corporate welfare.

                              [–]StevenTheSloth 19ポイント20ポイント  (34子コメント)

                              I agree but, I think it needs to be made perfectly clear that libertarians are AGAINST corporatism and want to embrace a free market.

                              For some reason, people tend to think that because im a libertarian I somehow want corporations to run everybody lives and hold us all at gunpoint (its laughable I know)...but the best way to get leftists on board with gary johnson is to find some common ground.

                              So light up a doobie with your marxist friends and lets help explain liberty to them.

                              [–]peanutbutterjams 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

                              Because "embracing the free market" means giving more power to the most powerful entities that has ever existed on the face of the earth: Multinational corporations. There's no two ways around that.

                              Beyond that, the proposition of 'embracing the free market' is rooted in fundamentalist ideology; it's a faith-based belief. "Embrace the free market and embrace liberty." Why would anyone believe that when de-regulation has increased the wealth divide, decreased choices for consumers and directly caused the "Great Recession"?

                              So light up a doobie with your marxist friends and lets help explain liberty to them.

                              Ah, the condescension in this is like the Libertarianism we all know and love. Because you couldn't possibly learn anything about liberty from them.

                              [–]space_is_fun 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Free markets entail ending bailouts, corporate subsidies, and regulations that favor the largest of companies. How does any of that give more power to MNCs?

                              [–]StevenTheSloth 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              "Because "embracing the free market" means giving more power to the most powerful entity that has ever existed on the face of the earth: Multinational corporations. There's no two ways around that."

                              And what "power" is this...specifically? Corporations dont exist without customers, and customers dont exist without a good and service being produced. Goods and services dont get produced without a workforce of people voluntarily trading their labor for compensation. And just to be clear, you think corporations are more powerful than governments? I never knew Colgate had it out to get me; all this time I thought I was brushing my teeth but in reality im just exploiting somebody. Hmm..

                              "Beyond that, the proposition of 'embracing the free market' is rooted fundamentalist ideology; it's a faith-based belief. "Embrace the free market and embrace liberty." Why would anyone believe that when de-regulation has increased the wealth divide, decreased choices for consumers and directly caused the "Great Recession"?"

                              So you're telling me its faith based to insinuate that a society works better when people associate civily and voluntary versus coercively? But its not faith based to assume that society would be better off if individuals..lived for society?

                              It seems you fail to realize what is indeed the most natural of human instincts: to be free and make the best life for yourself possible.

                              "Ah, the condescension in this is like the Libertarianism we all know and love. Because you couldn't possibly learn anything about liberty from them."

                              Liberty, by definition, means freedom from government control. Now while it is true that socialists want the people to own the means of production and not necessarily the government, they are completely fine with using the government to socialize the people...i mean the whole ideology is like one big ball of irony.

                              [–]SpanishDuke 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              means giving more power to the most powerful entities that has ever existed on the face of the earth: Multinational corporations

                              wow whoa hold it there.

                              What about governments? Hm? What multinational corporation has ever killed dozens of millions of people? Do multinational corporations have executive, legislative and judicial power? The power create new laws, enforce them and arbitrate them?

                              [–]PsychedSy 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              Most of us are for removing government power to regulate for the benefit of corporations while strengthening the ability of citizens to compete and sue for redress. Fuck all that "we followed federal guidelines" shit.

                              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                コメントをもっと表示する (27 返事)

                                  [–]ContraPositive 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Military spending is a form of corporate welfare, IMO.

                                  [–]tehobliv 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  From the wiki on Fair Tax:

                                  "In addition, economist Bruce Bartlett has argued that the rebate would create a large opportunity for fraud,[37] treats children disparately, and would constitute a welfare payment regardless of need"

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (51 返事)

                                      [–]saramon123 62ポイント63ポイント  (63子コメント)

                                      I feel that private prisons provide incentives for organizations to lobby for longer sentences and bribery from these organizations allow for judges to overlook rights in favor of expanding the prison system. Why do you believe that allowing all prisons to be privately owned is beneficial?

                                      Private companies look to increase profit, this generally causes lower and less quality services.

                                      [–]hrbuchanan 39ポイント40ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      I'd like to point out that Johnson has utilized private prisons in the past as a solution to a particular problem in the state where he was governor, but this doesn't mean he condones privatizing all prisons. I wrote a comment about this a few weeks ago, let me see if I can find it when I'm not on mobile.

                                      Edit: Found it!

                                      [–]NexusCloud 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                      He actually addresses this in the Joe Rogan podcast about 20 minutes in. Joe Rogan is anti-private prisons like most on Reddit, so he does what I think is a good job of probing the issue and Johnson gives a reasonable response.

                                      I would post the link but I'm on mobile; just look up "Joe Rogan Experience Gary Johnson" on youtube.

                                      [–]lastresort08 4ポイント5ポイント  (29子コメント)

                                      This is the same case for public prisons, and so making them private doesn't change that. He tried private prisons in New Mexico, and found out that they could do the same job but cheaper.

                                      Edit: It is so surprising that people who care so much about the private prisons being bad, don't support the only candidate that is against victimless crimes that put people into these prisons in the first place. Hypocritical much? Worry about the source of the problem, instead of the symptoms.

                                      [–]saramon123 29ポイント30ポイント  (19子コメント)

                                      Either way, I'd prefer that they be run by the State, and not by private corporations. The public doesn't have an incentive to keep people locked up, as we are not making a profit off of them when they are locked up. The only people who would make a profit by locking up people are private companies, who we pay to do a public service.

                                      It's cheaper because these companies cut costs, like food, medical, and mental health. It's cheaper because we give contracts to the lowest bidder. It's cheaper so that these corporations have something to point to. But either way we are allowing a corporation to decide how long they keep someone locked up, we are allowing corporations to lobby for longer sentencing, and we are allowing our prison population to grow.

                                      Having it run by the State I feel would decrease these problems.

                                      [–]Geeky_McNerd 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                      The guard unions still lobby for longer sentences. Which is unrespectable.

                                      [–]liberty2016 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      Public employee unions and assocations for prison guards and law enforcement officers have a direct financial incentive for keeping a high proportion of the population incarcerated.

                                      A large amount of lobbyist funding for mandatory minimum sentencing laws and campaigns to oppose state ballot initiatives relaxing marijuana laws have come from these assocations:

                                      https://theintercept.com/2016/05/18/ca-marijuana-measure/

                                      Justice Department programs pertaining to asset forfeiture and drug enforcement grants also create a financial incentive for police to lobby politicians for continuing prohibition and to conduct in frequent stops, searches, and seizures, which all serve to drive up the incarceration rate.

                                      So, financial incentives for mass incarceration certainly exist in our existing policing policies laws as well.

                                      Unlike public employee associations, private prison firms have the option of competing with each other to achieve growth, and in the event of policy changes reducing the proportion of the population incarcerated, they have the option of laying off employees, selling off assets, and moving into other markets.

                                      I don't think we can say that the profit incentive in the private scenario would be worse than the financial incentives in a public scenario. It both scenarios the incentives are dependent on how laws, contracts, and payments are structured.

                                      [–]PM-ME-SEXY-CHEESE 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      We have 92% of our prisons public and we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.

                                      [–]liberty2016 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      he public doesn't have an incentive to keep people locked up, as we are not making a profit off of them when they are locked up

                                      92% of prisoners are currently housed in public facilities and there are absolutely strong financial incentives promoting mass incarceration in our current public scenario. Economic and behavioral incentives are a product of the rationality of individuals and are present with or without the existence of specific liberal market-based policies.

                                      In our current system, public employee assocations for police and guards are the primary financial backers of political lobbyists advocating for tougher laws, mandatory minimums, and continuing prohibition.

                                      Law enforcement public employee associations have a strong financial incentive to lobby for these policies because their departments receive funding through Justice Department asset forfeiture and drug enforcement grants based on the numbers of stops, searches, and seizures they are performing.

                                      In both public and private scenarios the strength of incentives behind negative side effects (mass incarceration) are determined how specific laws, policies, and contracts are written and structured.

                                      [–]Confirmation_By_Us 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                      "Either way, I'd prefer that they be run by the State, and not by private corporations. The public doesn't have an incentive to keep people locked up,"

                                      This isn't true in any way shape or form. Entire political careers have been built on "tough on crime" rhetoric. Government prison guard unions want more prisoners every bit as much as private prison companies.

                                      The whole controversy of "private prisons" is a red herring to distract from the reality that your GOVERNMENT locks up more of its population than any country on earth. Your GOVERNMENT creates the laws that put people in jail. Your GOVERNMENT hires the police force to arrest those people. Your GOVERNMENT owns the courts that convict those people.

                                      If your biggest problem with that system is that those prisoners are locked in PRIVATE prisons, you're not competent to vote and I hope you stay home.

                                      [–]saramon123 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                      I never said that it was the biggest problem, obviously the problem is how many people we lock up, which is mostly caused by the war on drugs which should be ended. This is a concept that Johnson supports.

                                      While not the biggest problem, I believe private prisons are a problem, and one that I have a question about.

                                      Resorting to ad hominem, while placing words in someone mouth, is not a good form of argument.

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                        [–]lastresort08 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                        Even if is public, it is still for profit. The workers still benefit from having the prisoners there for a longer period of time, and they have their lobbying groups.

                                        Public prisons without oversight can do the same kind of damage. Everything requires oversight these days, and just because it is private, doesn't mean government should ignore having to do its job properly.

                                        If you want this problem to be solved, the only way to is have less prisoners in the first place. You can do that by reducing the mass incarcerations - which is the source of all these problems. People who end up in prisons over victimless crimes end up with a worse foundation for their life, than before they were put in prison. Their life is set up for failure if they spend sometime in prison. Only Gary Johnson targets the source of the problem now, by having stances that directly reduce mass incarcerations. Treat the problem, and not the symptoms.

                                        [–]saramon123 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                        I agree there, the best step is not locking up people, and I agree with Johnsons approach (I voted for him last election).

                                        However, public prisons have oversight the direct oversight of the people, and the Department of Corrections. Private prisons have oversight too, from a board of shareholders and a CEO.

                                        [–]Confirmation_By_Us 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        Private prisons operate under a contract with the government. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that all of their contractors meet their obligations. In both cases it's the government responsible for oversight. If that oversight isn't working, you have a problem with your government, not the contractor.

                                        Why don't people complain about the private corporations building the roads? It's because in most cases they do better work than the government can do directly.

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                          [–]generic_username420 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                          Even if is public, it is still for profit.

                                          Its not though

                                          [–]kentheprogrammer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          I don't see why the minimum requirements can't be set by the state and then let the private prison operators meet the standards. The prisons don't necessarily need to be run by the state if they set standards and monitor the prisons - at least in my mind.

                                          [–]GlassDelivery 15ポイント16ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                          That is factually false. They do a worse job, cost more, and hold prisoners longer on average.

                                          www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2014/10/21/az-fact-check-state-prisons-cheaper-private-prisons/17680289/

                                          Without adjusting for the increased medical costs imposed on state-run prisons, a 2010 Corrections Department study found that daily per inmate costs were cheaper in private prisons, at $57.97 as opposed to $60.66.

                                          However, when adjusting for medical costs, the results flipped with daily per inmate costs cheaper in state-run prisons at $48.42 compared with $53.02 in private prisons.

                                          After this study was released, the Republican-controlled state Legislature repealed the law that required the Corrections Department to release studies comparing per inmate costs.

                                          [–]lastresort08 7ポイント8ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                          This might have been in the case in Arizona, but it wasn't the case in New Mexico, when Gary Johnson was the governor there. Source.

                                          [–]PM-ME-SEXY-CHEESE 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          *Governor

                                          [–]GlassDelivery 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                          Independent study conducted to find the truth vs Gary Johnson making a political case. Very similarly fact checked /s

                                          First off, are private prisons in NM housing healthy inmates or all inmates?
                                          Second, it's still significantly higher than the cost public elsewhere and NM was under a crisis without proper facilities for their inmates. If they had built their own better prisons it would have reduced cost more than having private prisons built. Unless there's some magical system where it costs more in NM. (Hint- there isn't).
                                          Third, there is now a financial incentive to put and hold people in prisons. Before it was only a financial burden. Johnson claims it didn't effect him, who cares. It effects the prisons who are now incentivized to give people more time for infractions.

                                          [–]lastresort08 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                          If you care so much, why aren't you against people being put in these prisons in the first place? Gary Johnson is the only candidate that wants to prevent people from going into prisons, and all these people who supposedly care so much about the terrible things that happen in the private prisons, don't seem to care to treat the cause of the problem.

                                          Gary Johnson's experience has shown it to be different, and so he is open to trying this out. He said he would change his mind if it doesn't work out. There is always a financial incentive to keep people in prisons, whether we like to admit it or not, and its not just the case with private prisons.

                                          [–]ThePodThatWasPromisd 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                          What if the incentives were moved from inmate population to something else, like rehabilitation rates (e.g. percent of former inmates who stay away from crime)?

                                          [–]saramon123 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          If they weren't provided an incentive to keep people in prison it might help, but they would still always have an incentive to keep people in prison, it is what they get paid for.

                                          コメントをもっと表示する (26 返事)

                                            [–]Orange_CuckDonald 52ポイント53ポイント  (12子コメント)

                                            An answer in your previous AMA about someone who couldn't afford psychiatric care came off as extremely calloused and unsympathetic. Have you reconsidered your stance that people who can't afford healthcare should just start a business?

                                            [–]Dave-Strideer 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                            I sure hope so. "Cast off your mental illness, plebeian, and become a Captain of Industry under the United States Federal Government: Lite Edition feat. Gary!" What the hell, man

                                            [–]lastresort08 13ポイント14ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                            Look at the question the guy asked in the thread. He wanted to know how the American Dream of upward mobility can be gained via Libertarianism. Gary responded to that question, and not to the backstory he posted.

                                            People who want to see fault in Gary Johnson may read it as they please, and always ignore the question that was actually asked, but I think he answered it properly, even though he could have also addressed the backstory.

                                            [–]PutMyDickOnYourHead 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                            The person asking that original question sounds extremely entitled.

                                            [–]supergauntlet 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                            Ah yes, the mentally ill are so entitled for wanting to not be mentally ill

                                            [–]PutMyDickOnYourHead 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                            He's entitled to mental health care, but he's not entitled to 'The American Dream', which he was very specific about. It was a loaded question.

                                            [–]supergauntlet 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                            Is every American not entitled to the pursuit of the American dream?

                                            [–]westhatremains 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                            The pursuit of it, yes...not "the american dream" though.

                                            コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                              [–]space_is_fun 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              As a libertarian, that was a terribly stupid answer.

                                              [–]Risky14 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                              https://youtu.be/KQIuHGbKckY

                                              He was on Joe Rogan's podcast that revealed a lot of good information.

                                              [–]NexusCloud 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              Can't upvote this enough! Many of the questions you have regarding are discussed pretty thoroughly during this.

                                              [–]selfabortion 15ポイント16ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                              He's already done so many AMAs they had to change the rules ffs

                                              [–]MagicDragonRider 12ポイント13ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                              How do you intend to legalize marijuana ASAP?

                                              [–]rsantoro 28ポイント29ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              The executive branch has 100% authority over what schedule a drug is. Marijuana is currently a schedule 1 drug meaning it does not even have medical use. Take this into consideration cocaine is a schedule 2 drug meaning allowed for medical use. He has said if he becomes president he will de-schedule Marijuana literally meaning the federal government can no longer prosecute over the use of the drug.

                                              [–]aschsr 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              Taking it off schedule will help. As well he could get rid of the DEA as it was created by executive order so it can be get rid of it in the same way.

                                              コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                [–]R_radical 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                TBH i just want to know if hes for a flat tax system.

                                                [–]yourslice 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                He's for a flat consumption tax, similar to the fair tax in which every American would get a rebate check every month to cover the taxes paid at or below the poverty level of spending.

                                                Though he has said he's not running for king or dictator and therefore he would have to work for congress. But he doesn't want to raise taxes, and he wants to reduce spending where it's reasonable to do so (including military spending).

                                                As Governors of blue states, Johnson and Weld reduced spending without raising taxes. They are very fiscally responsible.

                                                [–]mcguirk86 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                That second paragraph is precisely why he is by far the best candidate. Some of his ideas are radical yes but he believes in democracy.

                                                [–]mrpopenfresh 17ポイント18ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                Dude, he's done like 50 AMAs and they were all terrible.

                                                [–]lastresort08 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                He was praised in the majority of AMAs for answering questions that most politicians dodge. He has done like around 10, but none of them this year.

                                                Of course, keep making crazy unsupported claims all you want.

                                                コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                  [–]scumbag-reddit 13ポイント14ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                                  I would love a valid answer as to why he supports the TPP

                                                  [–]therealjohnfreeman 13ポイント14ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                  What makes an answer "valid"?

                                                  [–]red1dragon588 23ポイント24ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  When the answer he gives lines up with the person asking the question's pre-conceived notions of what a correct answer should be.

                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                    [–]thr3sk 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                    Yeah, I think all he's said so far is that his economic advisers are telling him it's a net good thing, though he says he'll veto anything with crony capitalism involved.

                                                    [–]scumbag-reddit 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                    So he's for the TPP but against it?

                                                    [–]yourslice 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    He's for actual free trade, against crony capitalism.

                                                    [–]thr3sk 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    Well to my knowledge we can't really predict how good the TPP will be until a few years after the fact. I haven't seen anything glaring in the text that has set off alarms, it's all going to come down to the implementation, specifically on the arbitration side.

                                                    [–]scumbag-reddit 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    What about that once it's passed it cannot be undone, as stated in the TPP itself?

                                                    [–]Nazi_Dr_Leo_Spaceman 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    I wouldn't say he supports it. He supports free trade in general, yes; but he seems conflicted on the TPP. I think thats largely based on the fact that it's basically impossible to understand its intricacies without the entire US government helping you. Once he can figure out all the crony capitalism involved i can't imagine he would support it as is.

                                                    [–]natek11 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Agree. Some clarification from him would be great.

                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                      [–]ifap2impress 19ポイント20ポイント  (16子コメント)

                                                      Here is a short compilation of my favorite Gary Johnson moments from previous AMAs:

                                                      https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/23qbtl/ask_gov_gary_johnson/cgzkfu0

                                                      https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1r4020/i_am_gov_gary_johnson_honorary_chairman_of_the/cdjdckr?context=10000

                                                      https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1r4020/i_am_gov_gary_johnson_honorary_chairman_of_the/cdjcth2

                                                      https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1a69ym/i_am_gov_gary_johnson_honorary_chairman_of_the/c8uhwcm

                                                      https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1iggil/reddit_with_gov_gary_johnson/cb47ixx?context=3

                                                      https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2eoi74/i_am_gov_gary_johnson_honorary_chairman_of_the/ck1g0rt?context=10000

                                                      https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/23qbtl/ask_gov_gary_johnson/cgzjxc8?context=3

                                                      https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1slr6u/lets_talk_nsa_healthcare_more_with_gov_gary/cdyv28b

                                                      https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1r4020/i_am_gov_gary_johnson_honorary_chairman_of_the/cdjcoo5

                                                      https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2eoi74/i_am_gov_gary_johnson_honorary_chairman_of_the/ck1h8jv

                                                      [–]couchpoop 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                      http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/it-only-took-half-wikipedia-entry-libertarianism-c-695

                                                      [–]evilbob2200 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                      i love this soooo much !!! ive seen some of these but never saved them like this

                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                        [–]OfHyenas 11ポイント12ポイント  (40子コメント)

                                                        Gary Johnson is Reddit's new Bernie Sanders, seems like.

                                                        [–]the_grandprize 20ポイント21ポイント  (23子コメント)

                                                        I have no idea why. Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnson are polar opposites.

                                                        [–]MrPooPooPudding 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        They share perspectives like:

                                                        [–]CrzyJek 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        They're similar on a lot of things when it comes to actual POTUS powers.

                                                        [–]yourslice 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

                                                        I voted for Bernie and I'm going to vote for Johnson. They are NOT polar opposites on a number of very important issues: civil rights, foreign policy, climate change (both believe it's a problem and want to do something about it), LGBT rights, abortion rights, anti-crony capitalism, immigration policy....the list goes on and on.

                                                        [–]chocolatevape 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                        You need to go back and do your homework. Bernie and Gary do not agree on a lot of this...

                                                        [–]iamthegraham 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                        climate change

                                                        lmao electing a libertarian in order to address climate change has to be one of the stupidest things I've heard in months.

                                                        abortion rights

                                                        Johnson is in favor of overturning Roe and letting individual states ban abortion, so say goodbye to abortion rights in half the country.

                                                        [–]ndphillips 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                        (both believe it's a problem and want to do something about it),

                                                        You should really read up on Johnson, then.

                                                        https://www.johnsonweld.com/environment

                                                        That's his campaign page on the environment. Not a single policy proposal to curb carbon emissions or climate change.

                                                        In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests.

                                                        This is just blatantly false. Consumers don't feel the direct negative impact of their contributions to climate change. And most of the innovations - see current mpg requirements on new cars - have come about because of governmental regulations, the very regulations Johnson is against.

                                                        [–]yourslice 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                        You should really read up on Johnson, then.

                                                        I assure you I have read up on him a TON. Certainly more than just his campaign website. He does believe in climate change and he does want to do something about it. He's not a Bernie Sanders on this issue, but he's not a Donald Trump either!

                                                        I caught his town hall on Fusion TV the other day and he wants to have a carbon tax. It's not on his website yet, but he is very much open to addressing climate change.

                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (10 返事)

                                                          [–]XachAttach 11ポイント12ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                                          Which seems a little crazy to me considering Bernie and Gary are on opposite ends of the scale when it comes to government involvement.

                                                          Guess people really wanna smoke up and don't care about the rest.

                                                          [–]pirpirpir 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                          Um or we want someone who isn't a blatant liar or megalomaniac?

                                                          [–]yourslice 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                          They are on the same ends of the scale when it comes to foreign policy, civil rights, immigration, LGBT rights, abortion and a lot of other stuff.

                                                          [–]ndphillips 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                          You say that, but I wonder what Johnson's response would be regarding the gay couple and the baker. Would he see it as federal overreach for that baker to be compelled to make a cake for a gay wedding if they make them for straight weddings as well?

                                                          I reckon he and Bernie would find sunlight between their positions on that one.

                                                          [–]yourslice 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                          Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are very clear that gays buying cakes is the same issue as blacks being served at diner counters. They think it's a civil rights issue and they think if you are in the business of selling cakes you can't discriminate.

                                                          I will admit that quite a few libertarians feel differently, but on this issue Gary and Bill are very clear on where they fall.

                                                          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                            [–]bumpercarinfluenza 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                            Well, if your first choice is no longer in the running, might as well hop on board with your second choice.

                                                            [–]sandj12 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                            I don't know, judging from some of the top comments there's a good amount of skepticism going around re: his stance on vaccinations, climate change, taxes, basic income, and other issues.

                                                            [–]Lyxh 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                            Different groups of people supporting different things. The people who saw this thread and bothered to comment are a completely different set of people than S4P subscribers.

                                                            [–]chocolatevape 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                            So many people just want to vote for this guy because of weed. They haven't actually looked into what he would want to do as president beyond that. I supported Sanders and would not vote for Gary.

                                                            [–]kmar81 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                            Since we are not discussing things the president can do - you know a Libertarian is supposed to stick to the constitution - how about some actually serious issues?

                                                            How about electoral reform and dismantling the obviously rigged primary/debate/electoral system?

                                                            How about trying to change the results of Citizens United?

                                                            How about limiting the scope of illegal and untransparent involvement in covert operations abroad like Syria?

                                                            How about reforming the police and justice system - civil forfeiture, virtual immunity through union protections, incentives to push for ridiculous prosecutions?

                                                            How about addressing the total unsustainability of Medicare in the upcoming decades?

                                                            How about addressing the growing influence of big tech industry forcing its preferred legal solutions - increased control over IP and reduced competitiveness - to guarantee future profits?

                                                            How about IP extending itself by stealth to other fields - agriculture, biotechnology, human genome?

                                                            How about international trade agreements which rather than free trade are "managed trade" and corporations in advantageous positions - especially American corporations in whose interests those deals are being primarily made and who will have guaranteed profits...unlike the American people?

                                                            How about countless items under corporate welfare?

                                                            How about addressing Wall Street's and government's collusion in creating an unsustainable bubble economy which requires constant monetary expansion to maintain it and generate GDP growth?

                                                            How about addressing the fact that jobs are being sucked away from America because thanks to the wonders of the modern financial system earning ten times less than Americans doesn't translate to being able to live ten times as poor if you live in Asia because a number on paper can be worth ten times less but buy only three times less?

                                                            How about some of those instead of marijuana legalization or racism?

                                                            [–]congalines 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                            what do you believe happened to Kansas? The state enacted fiscal policies that are very similar to libertarian fiscal policies. The state almost went bankrupt. Taxes were cut but not spending. How would you prevent this from happening to the US as a whole if you are elected?

                                                            [–]Bfranx 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                            Is he still against Net Neutrality? That was always my biggest issue with his campaign.

                                                            [–]Trump-Tzu 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                            Yes he is against net neutrality as its considered big government regulation.

                                                            [–]Bfranx 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                            True enough, but of all the companies out there I'd definitely say ISPs will be the ones taking full advantage of a lack of regulation.

                                                            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                              [–]sandj12 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                              You have previously stated that entrepreneurship is "the best chance you have to reach the American dream". So why do you oppose net neutrality when, by definition, such a stance would adversely affect entrepreneurs?

                                                              [–]LatvianGiant 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                              He ain't gonna be prez

                                                              [–]unconTROLLable 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                              wow i'd rather have him than that EVIL trump

                                                              [–]grifxdonut 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                                              Why do an AMA when we can get him into the primary debates?

                                                              [–]iamthegraham 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              well, the primaries are over, so you kind of missed the boat there.

                                                              [–]Frylick[S] 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                              An AMA can help get some detailed issues out for public consumption on the internet, translating directly into the increase in polls we need to get Johnson and Weld into the debates!

                                                              Remember, Johnson needs to hit 15% in the polls in order to debate. Check out u/TheQuestion78 post here and help get Johnson evenly represented in the polls.

                                                              [–]CrzyJek 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                              For the record... I highly doubt that even if he got the 15%, the committee won't let it happen.

                                                              [–]lastresort08 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              I still think it is better for him to not do it, because he is polling highest among young voters and so coming to reddit won't be as useful. He needs to be on television as much as possible (which is what he is doing now), so that he can reach the older people - who get polled more often than young, and that's the population he isn't doing great with (since they don't know about him).

                                                              [–]chocolatevape 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              That's not going to happen. People don't care enough to bring him on.

                                                              [–]OpticCostMeMyAccount 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                              No, no "we" can't

                                                              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                                [–]GatorGuard 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                                I think a lot of progressives will agree with you on social values like gay rights, abortion, legalizing marijuana, immigration reform, and so forth. However, classical libertarian views, which you are cited as holding, often include an economy with minimal regulation.

                                                                How do you defend a free market economy today, when a lack of appropriate regulation has been integral in the formation of so many major monopolies in the U.S. (Standard Oil and U.S. Steel of the past, Goldman Sachs and other investment banks today)?

                                                                [–]fracta1 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                Why do the most obnoxious people I know support you so fervently?

                                                                [–]dan_nominator 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                Gary- I am voting for you in November after comparing your views to your opponents. Most my family and friends are voting for Hillary or Donald, and when I ask why not voting for Gary, they say they don't want to "waste their vote", which I think is ridiculous.

                                                                What would you say to someone who thinks voting for you (or a third party candidate) is a waste of their vote? Hopefully you get into the debates, and you are asked this question. I think it's the main thing holding up many many more votes for you.

                                                                [–]westhatremains 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                He answered this in his CNN town hall; his answer was that a wasted vote is voting for evil, be it the "lesser" evil or not.

                                                                [–]TheSilence13 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                Who?

                                                                [–]lastresort08 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                Gary Johnson.

                                                                The third candidate for the POTUS. He is a two-term governor from New Mexico, and he will be running with Bill Weld, who was a two-term governor of Massachusetts. They both ran in heavily blue states, and won. They both reduced taxes and increased employment in their states. Gary is the only person who stands a chance against Clinton, since Trump is falling the national polls and has no chance of beating Clinton.

                                                                They run on the platform of "Fiscally conservative, and socially liberal". They are also anti-wars. They are the solution to the incredibly polarized political system.

                                                                They need 15% in the national polls to get into the debates. Support them now, even if you don't vote for them in the election, makes sense to do if you want better ideas, and better debates.

                                                                [–]sallabanchod 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                                Ever since I found out Gary Johnson supports Citizens United (meaning he wants unlimited sums of money to be involved in politics), I can no longer support him. He was otherwise my number one choice.

                                                                [–]changeupcharley 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                I think your questions #3 and #4 are conflicting. If you want to decrease wasteful spending, why would your very next question be about how the government is going to get involved in providing higher education? It feels as if your agenda is slightly bleeding through the effort you've made to appear objective, especially when your next question is about marijuana. Great set of questions in general, however.

                                                                [–]confused_hippie 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                I feel that Antivaxxer should be legall forced to get vaccination. I don't want diseases like polio continaming our water supply, nor a massive outbreak of measles. Refusing to vaccinate yourself or your children going to create new strains of viruses, that may or may not be able to be solved by vaccinations. If you are not getting vaccines you will deter medical process and kill many who have gotten vaccines.

                                                                [–]cumfarts 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                He's done at least 30 of them

                                                                [–]Anthro_Fascist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                I wonder what he will do about NASA's funding.

                                                                コメントをもっと表示する (101 返事)