Can anyone really argue Gary Johnson is not the best candidate on the ballot?

[Anathema]

Johnson isn't an addict. Zero evidence of that. Is that all you got?

Doesn't need to be an abuser. Simply being, or having been, a user is enough to disqualify a candidate in my mind.

 

[dblack]

I mean, it isn't even close.

Gary had a great record in NM, is a decent, honest, and patriotic American.

He is head and shoulders above any candidate on the ballot. Literally, none of the others even reach his knees....

You had me until you said he was a "patriotic American". I hate that phrase, usually means they're into mindless symbolism.

Patriotism can come in many varieties. Many of us view it as loyalty to your fellow countrymen (ie not necessarily the current government).

 

[dblack]

Johnson isn't an addict. Zero evidence of that. Is that all you got?

Doesn't need to be an abuser. Simply being, or having been, a user is enough to disqualify a candidate in my mind.

Your mind is the issue. No doubt about that.

 

[Anathema]

Your mind is the issue. No doubt about that.

My mind is directly descended from the people who founded this country. I have been educated and taught their Morals and Values (not those of the mouthpieces who wrote the flawed founding documenrs).

 

[frigidweirdo]

I mean, it isn't even close.

Gary had a great record in NM, is a decent, honest, and patriotic American.

He is head and shoulders above any candidate on the ballot. Literally, none of the others even reach his knees....

You had me until you said he was a "patriotic American". I hate that phrase, usually means they're into mindless symbolism.

Patriotism can come in many varieties. Many of us view it as loyalty to your fellow countrymen (ie not necessarily the current government).

Yes, it comes in many varieties. So saying this guy is patriotic is like the same as saying he eats food. No idea what type of food. Just that it's food.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Thanks for the non-answer.

A non-answer to begged questions. I don't play into logical fallacies.

With all due respect, it is your mindset that is the one that owes the answers.

For decade after decade, these politicians -from all parties- tell us how screwed up the system is, promise us that they're going to fix it, proceed to make things even worse than before, then the only recourse we're given is to vote harder the next time around?

Now, somehow or another, a '70s burnout from New Mexico who wouldn't know a consistently applied principle if it knocked him upside the head, and his sad sack progressive RINO from Massachusetts sidekick, are going to miraculously turn the shipwreck of state around in the general direction of political Nirvana, if we vote extra, extra hard this time?

I don't think so.

If anyone here has some 'splaining to do here, it's you.

 

[Montrovant]

Thanks for the non-answer.

A non-answer to begged questions. I don't play into logical fallacies.

With all due respect, it is your mindset that is the one that owes the answers.

For decade after decade, these politicians -from all parties- tell us how screwed up the system is, promise us that they're going to fix it, proceed to make things even worse than before, then the only recourse we're given is to vote harder the next time around?

Now, somehow or another, a '70s burnout from New Mexico who wouldn't know a consistently applied principle if it knocked him upside the head, and his sad sack progressive RINO from Massachusetts sidekick, are going to miraculously turn the shipwreck of state around in the general direction of political Nirvana, if we vote extra, extra hard this time?

I don't think so.

If anyone here has some 'splaining to do here, it's you.

What do you want me to explain? That I didn't say any of the crap you just posted? That's obvious.

Do you want me to explain that your post has nothing to do with questions of whether anarchy is a realistic possibility? That also seems obvious.

Promoting anarchy, then, when questioned about it, saying that you don't like the current US system of government, is ridiculous. I don't like the government of North Korea, that doesn't make anarchy a viable alternative.

I don't expect Johnson, should he be elected, to magically change everything. In fact, I've argued that a president's limited power is actually a reason to vote for Johnson (or at least someone other than the major party candidates). However, despite how crappy they are as candidates, I still would vastly prefer having Clinton or Trump elected to any attempt at changing from our current Republic to an anarchist nation.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

What do you want me to explain? That I didn't say any of the crap you just posted? That's obvious.

Do you want me to explain that your post has nothing to do with questions of whether anarchy is a realistic possibility? That also seems obvious.

Promoting anarchy, then, when questioned about it, saying that you don't like the current US system of government, is ridiculous. I don't like the government of North Korea, that doesn't make anarchy a viable alternative.

I don't expect Johnson, should he be elected, to magically change everything. In fact, I've argued that a president's limited power is actually a reason to vote for Johnson (or at least someone other than the major party candidates). However, despite how crappy they are as candidates, I still would vastly prefer having Clinton or Trump elected to any attempt at changing from our current Republic to an anarchist nation.

Claiming anarchy as unrealistic, when compared to the utter despotic shit shows that governments always degenerate into, is rather amusing. Implying that a thug state like North Korea would be even very slightly better is uproarious.

OTOH, it can be somewhat credibly argued that what we have now is anarchy via bureaucracy and oligarchy. However with my particular brand of anarchy, at least there isn't the power of coercion centralized in a few hands in far flung seats of power. At least the behavior of sociopaths remains localized, and without any sort of organized political power to wield over the masses.

In any case, it's abundantly clear that just voting harder, as the alternative to nothing at all, is that is which no longer viable.

 

[Montrovant]

What do you want me to explain? That I didn't say any of the crap you just posted? That's obvious.

Do you want me to explain that your post has nothing to do with questions of whether anarchy is a realistic possibility? That also seems obvious.

Promoting anarchy, then, when questioned about it, saying that you don't like the current US system of government, is ridiculous. I don't like the government of North Korea, that doesn't make anarchy a viable alternative.

I don't expect Johnson, should he be elected, to magically change everything. In fact, I've argued that a president's limited power is actually a reason to vote for Johnson (or at least someone other than the major party candidates). However, despite how crappy they are as candidates, I still would vastly prefer having Clinton or Trump elected to any attempt at changing from our current Republic to an anarchist nation.

Claiming anarchy as unrealistic, when compared to the utter despotic shit shows that governments always degenerate into, is rather amusing. Implying that a thug state like North Korea would be even very slightly better is uproarious.

OTOH, it can be somewhat credibly argued that what we have now is anarchy via bureaucracy and oligarchy. However with my particular brand of anarchy, at least there isn't the power of coercion centralized in a few hands in far flung seats of power. At least the behavior of sociopaths remains localized, and without any sort of organized political power to wield over the masses.

In any case, it's abundantly clear that just voting harder, as the alternative to nothing at all, is that is which no longer viable.

You continue to create arguments I am not making.

Whether government is good or bad has nothing to do with whether or not anarchy is a realistic idea.

I never said North Korea was better, only that anarchy isn't a realistic alternative to that kind of oppressive regime.

 

[Jarlaxle]

..... Truth is, both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarians, eager to tell us all how to live. Fuck them both!

Absurdly nothing wrong get with Authoritarianism. I am an Authoritarianism. It's the ultimate form of Conservatism, made necessary by those who place their personal preferences above Right and Wrong.

You wanna fuck me? Bring it on. Just make sure your life insurance is paid up and you bring at least a level IIIA bulletproof vest with you.

Just need to send about a half dozen guys to grab you...lob in a couple of flash-bangs and three or four canisters of tear gas, go in with a couple Tazers, a really big butterfly net, and bring a straitjacket.

 

[dblack]

Can anyone really argue Gary Johnson is not the best candidate on the ballot?

I don't think they can. Most aren't even trying. They're mostly just making the argument that we should vote for their crappy candidate because some other candidate is even worse.

 

[LaDexter]

They come in two groups.

1. the "he's a pothead" but I won't answer why his record in private sector, public sector, and his personal health are so awesome, so I'll just drive by the "pothead" charge and duck back under the sheet when asked for specifics as to how being a "pothead" harmed Gary in any way

2. the "he's nutty" because I love more and more and MORE MORE MORE MORE government spending and hate anyone and everyone in the way of an increased monthly government check

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

You continue to create arguments I am not making.

Whether government is good or bad has nothing to do with whether or not anarchy is a realistic idea.

I never said North Korea was better, only that anarchy isn't a realistic alternative to that kind of oppressive regime.

You're making the argument that anarchy isn't realistic with no support other than you say-so. And you are saying North Korea is better if you're claiming that anarchy isn't, in your opinion, "realistic".

But casting all that aside, you also said:

Again I'll ask, where/when has humanity lived in large numbers in relatively close proximity without some form of government?

That is both an appeal to tradition and a non sequitur.

Just because people living in large numbers have formed governments, does not automatically mean that one necessarily begets the other. Moreover, just because they've always done so, as far as you know, doesn't automatically make the action necessary, proper, or even arguably good.

If I said that because people live in large numbers, that means that they are in need of the Mafia, you'd rightly decry that statement as preposterous. But change the noun, and the statement is supposed to have some sort of logical underpinning? Do elections, snazzy uniforms, and fancy titles change the nature of protection racketeering?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

They come in two groups.

1. the "he's a pothead" but I won't answer why his record in private sector, public sector, and his personal health are so awesome, so I'll just drive by the "pothead" charge and duck back under the sheet when asked for specifics as to how being a "pothead" harmed Gary in any way

2. the "he's nutty" because I love more and more and MORE MORE MORE MORE government spending and hate anyone and everyone in the way of an increased monthly government check

I don't fit in either of those arbitrarily tossed together groups.

He's not a libertarian, he is a statist. Based upon his on statements and policy positions, he will grow government. We can already get that from the other two embarrassments running in the traditional parties.

 

[LaDexter]

Based upon his on statement and policy positions, he will grow government.

Based upon his record, he won't.


Regardless, it is absolutely impossible to argue he isn't the most fiscally conservative of the 4 candidates, by a mile.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

He is only "fiscally conservative" because the state of New Mexico can't just print up money. They have to balance their budgets.

Nothing he has said or done outside that leads me to believe that he won't either be a business-as-usual politician, or an utter flailing failure like Jesse Ventura.

 

[dblack]

They come in two groups.

1. the "he's a pothead" but I won't answer why his record in private sector, public sector, and his personal health are so awesome, so I'll just drive by the "pothead" charge and duck back under the sheet when asked for specifics as to how being a "pothead" harmed Gary in any way

2. the "he's nutty" because I love more and more and MORE MORE MORE MORE government spending and hate anyone and everyone in the way of an increased monthly government check

I don't fit in either of those arbitrarily tossed together groups.

He's not a libertarian, he is a statist. Based upon his on statements and policy positions, he will grow government. We can already get that from the other two embarrassments running in the traditional parties.

We'll get far, far more of that from the other two parties.

 

[dblack]

He is only "fiscally conservative" because the state of New Mexico can't just print up money. They have to balance their budgets.

Nothing he has said or done outside that leads me to believe that he won't either be a business-as-usual politician, or an utter flailing failure like Jesse Ventura.

During his tenure as governor, Johnson became known for his low-tax libertarian views, adhering to policies of tax and bureaucracy reduction supported by a cost–benefit analysis rationale. He cut the 10% annual growth in the budget, in part owing to his use of the gubernatorial veto 200 times during his first six months in office.[17] Johnson set state and national records for his use of veto and line-item veto powers:[17] estimated to have been more than the other 49 contemporary governors combined,[18][19] which gained him the nicknames "Veto Johnson" and "Governor Veto".[20][21]

Clearly, an out of control statist!

 

[LaDexter]

They have to balance their budgets.

In other words, a balanced budget amendment works for New Mexico, despite the hate and lies Democrats used to try to stop it from becoming law, the same hate and lies Democrats use to block it at the Federal level...

 

[Montrovant]

You continue to create arguments I am not making.

Whether government is good or bad has nothing to do with whether or not anarchy is a realistic idea.

I never said North Korea was better, only that anarchy isn't a realistic alternative to that kind of oppressive regime.

You're making the argument that anarchy isn't realistic with no support other than you say-so. And you are saying North Korea is better if you're claiming that anarchy isn't, in your opinion, "realistic".

But casting all that aside, you also said:

Again I'll ask, where/when has humanity lived in large numbers in relatively close proximity without some form of government?

That is both an appeal to tradition and a non sequitur.

Just because people living in large numbers have formed governments, does not automatically mean that one necessarily begets the other. Moreover, just because they've always done so, as far as you know, doesn't automatically make the action necessary, proper, or even arguably good.

If I said that because people live in large numbers, that means that they are in need of the Mafia, you'd rightly decry that statement as preposterous. But change the noun, and the statement is supposed to have some sort of logical underpinning? Do elections, snazzy uniforms, and fancy titles change the nature of protection racketeering?

I haven't argued it was proper or good to form governments. I've argued that it may be an inevitability of the human condition. The fact that people have pretty much always done so is evidence of my point.

Let's turn it around. You advocate anarchy, yet produce no evidence that it is a workable system on a large scale. You are making an argument with no support other than your say-so. I am at least providing some modicum of evidence that my position is true.

I think that anarchy seems to rely on people being both good-natured and having basically the same idea about governance. I don't think human history provides any evidence that that is an accurate description of humanity, at least in large numbers.

I still am not saying North Korea is better than anarchy. I'm only saying that anarchy is not going to replace a North Korean style of government because people aren't going to live in an anarchistic society. Much as they are often terrible, I think that most people want the security and stability that governments can provide. A system of laws and some sort of organizations to enforce those laws, a military to defend against other nations, representatives to deal with the governments of those other nations, etc., these are all things that I think most people are happy to have. Yes, North Korea has an oppressive government. That doesn't mean no government would work.

If you said that because people live in large numbers, that means that they are in need of the Mafia, I'd want to hear some sort of reasoning for that statement. I've explained, in multiple ways, why I think people will inevitably create some sort of government. I'll even grant that, with the right types of technology, getting rid of government might be feasible; we are not at that point yet, though.