Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Party nomination

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Oh, thank goodness. Finally, someone to explain libertarianism to libertarians. We've been lost without you. Your liberty is derived from property rights, that's where the limitations exist. For example, you have the freedom of the press, but it's not an abridgement of your press freedom if the New York Times refuses to publish your op-ed because it's their property. Likewise, if I decide not to serve you in my business it's not an affront to your liberty because it's my property. To force the New York Times to publish your op-ed or to force me to serve you against my will is the affront to liberty, because you're violating property rights. That has nothing to do with anarchy, and everything to do with respecting property rights.

Not really. You can't do whatever you want on your property, can you? Murder is still illegal on your property.

You don't have to set up a business on your property, do you? But if you decided to set up a business, you decide to follow the rules the country sets for businesses.

Now some Libertarians might say that a person should be able to serve whoever they like on their business and not serve others they don't like. However others might say that this takes away the liberty of individuals so isn't libertarianism.

And yet as libertarians I think we're the ones who get to define libertarianism. And no, that doesn't mean you get to murder people on your property, because people have a property right in themselves and murder is an example of a violation of property rights. Me not wanting to serve you a hamburger does not violate your property rights at all, but you forcing me to would violate my property rights. Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property. That's the definition.

Then define Libertarianism so that it isn't Anarchy.

Murder is a violation of property rights? What?

I think you need to define "property rights" first.

I repeat, "Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property." That doesn't have to mean anarchy, just ask any of the minarchist libertarians on this board, but it may mean anarchy to the anarcho-capitalists.

Yes, murder is a violation of property rights, of course it's not in the same realm as, say, stealing someone's television, but a violation of a higher degree. We all know what property is, but, from a libertarian perspective, my property in my material objects is derived from self-ownership. In other words, a property right in myself and my own body. Therefore, we have to logically conclude that any harm that befalls my body, assault, murder, rape, etc, is a violation of my property right in myself.

I really think you shouldn't stick to calling your body your property.

However, if we're going to deal with that, then here's my case.

If I hit you in the face, that's assault, and goes against Libertarianism.
If I call you an insult, isn't that also assault, it could potentially harm the other person, make them feel bad, etc?

So, if I walk into a bakery and the bakery says "we're not serving you because you're a n*gger [or add any other insult]" then this goes against your supposed property rights.

It's a fair question, but no. Insulting someone is not the same as assaulting someone. In the latter, you cause physical harm to somebody else against their will, in the former you say something mean and that person chooses how to respond. In other words, by insulting someone you're not forcing them to feel bad about it, they're choosing to do so. For example, I've been insulted many times on this board and I don't think I've ever let it ruin my day. My property, including myself, were completely unharmed by being called a "moron" or what have you.

To answer the second part of your post, about the baker, we don't have a property right in what other people think about us, as they own their own bodies, and they have the right to say whatever they want on their own property. So in the example of your racist baker, it is not a violation of anybody's property rights for the baker to think a certain race is bad, to express that that race is bad inside their own property, and to refuse to associate with anybody of that race. That doesn't mean we endorse the baker's worldview, merely that we accept their right not to associate with anybody that they don't want to on their own property so that we may have the same right when it comes time to shun that baker for being a jerk.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Gary Johnson and William Weld?

Shouldn't they call it the RINOtarian Party?

A rebranding would certainly be nice.

 

[Divine Wind]

And now by supporting Johnson you may throw the election to Hillary. Hypocrite much?

If the Republican party wants my vote, they need to run better candidates and have a better platform.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not really. You can't do whatever you want on your property, can you? Murder is still illegal on your property.

You don't have to set up a business on your property, do you? But if you decided to set up a business, you decide to follow the rules the country sets for businesses.

Now some Libertarians might say that a person should be able to serve whoever they like on their business and not serve others they don't like. However others might say that this takes away the liberty of individuals so isn't libertarianism.

And yet as libertarians I think we're the ones who get to define libertarianism. And no, that doesn't mean you get to murder people on your property, because people have a property right in themselves and murder is an example of a violation of property rights. Me not wanting to serve you a hamburger does not violate your property rights at all, but you forcing me to would violate my property rights. Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property. That's the definition.

Then define Libertarianism so that it isn't Anarchy.

Murder is a violation of property rights? What?

I think you need to define "property rights" first.

I repeat, "Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property." That doesn't have to mean anarchy, just ask any of the minarchist libertarians on this board, but it may mean anarchy to the anarcho-capitalists.

Yes, murder is a violation of property rights, of course it's not in the same realm as, say, stealing someone's television, but a violation of a higher degree. We all know what property is, but, from a libertarian perspective, my property in my material objects is derived from self-ownership. In other words, a property right in myself and my own body. Therefore, we have to logically conclude that any harm that befalls my body, assault, murder, rape, etc, is a violation of my property right in myself.

I really think you shouldn't stick to calling your body your property.

However, if we're going to deal with that, then here's my case.

If I hit you in the face, that's assault, and goes against Libertarianism.
If I call you an insult, isn't that also assault, it could potentially harm the other person, make them feel bad, etc?

So, if I walk into a bakery and the bakery says "we're not serving you because you're a n*gger [or add any other insult]" then this goes against your supposed property rights.

It's a fair question, but no. Insulting someone is not the same as assaulting someone. In the latter, you cause physical harm to somebody else against their will, in the former you say something mean and that person chooses how to respond. In other words, by insulting someone you're not forcing them to feel bad about it, they're choosing to do so. For example, I've been insulted many times on this board and I don't think I've ever let it ruin my day. My property, including myself, were completely unharmed by being called a "moron" or what have you.

To answer the second part of your post, about the baker, we don't have a property right in what other people think about us, as they own their own bodies, and they have the right to say whatever they want on their own property. So in the example of your racist baker, it is not a violation of anybody's property rights for the baker to think a certain race is bad, to express that that race is bad inside their own property, and to refuse to associate with anybody of that race. That doesn't mean we endorse the baker's worldview, merely that we accept their right not to associate with anybody that they don't want to on their own property so that we may have the same right when it comes time to shun that baker for being a jerk.

In one it's physical harm. In the other emotional harm. Are you saying physical harm will always be worse than emotional harm? I disagree, and disagree massively.

Though, what if I say "no, I'm not serving you, you dirty f*cking n*igger", then the shop gets raided by a bunch of black people and the owners get lynched. What then?

They caused emotional harm, they caused a situation to happen that involved violence, and those who committed the violence are the ones guilty of the killing, but those who said the things that were wrong were hardly innocent either.

This goes back to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, doesn't it?

If you cause harm through your choice of words, then you are not protected. This is a very well known part of the theory of Human Rights.

 

[Divine Wind]

we are going to get one of them no matter what you do. They are not equally bad, Trump is a much better choice.

Do you really want HRC putting 3 or 4 judges on the SC?

Trump is better, but not much better.

Hillary probably couldn't try to put more than one judge and even that one would have to pass Congress. Due to her age, I expect that even if she won, she'd be a one term President.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And now by supporting Johnson you may throw the election to Hillary. Hypocrite much?

If the Republican party wants my vote, they need to run better candidates and have a better platform.

A platform might help. Do the Democrats or Republicans have a platform?

 

[frigidweirdo]

we are going to get one of them no matter what you do. They are not equally bad, Trump is a much better choice.

Do you really want HRC putting 3 or 4 judges on the SC?

Trump is better, but not much better.

Hillary probably couldn't try to put more than one judge and even that one would have to pass Congress. Due to her age, I expect that even if she won, she'd be a one term President.

Better? How are either of them "better" than the other?

 

[Divine Wind]

And now by supporting Johnson you may throw the election to Hillary. Hypocrite much?

If the Republican party wants my vote, they need to run better candidates and have a better platform.

A platform might help. Do the Democrats or Republicans have a platform?

Yes. It's on their webpages.

 

[Divine Wind]

I'm sure if Trumpster gets elected, he will become quite ineffective. It's not going to be as easy as he makes it sound, I'm sure.

Agreed. Half the shit he is proposing is unConstitutional.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And now by supporting Johnson you may throw the election to Hillary. Hypocrite much?

If the Republican party wants my vote, they need to run better candidates and have a better platform.

Agreed. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who four years ago said anybody who voted for Johnson was a loser and an idiot because they were going to hand the election to Obama, now supporting Johnson over Trump who he claims is at least marginally better than Hillary, thus handing the election to Hillary.

If somebody supports Johnson I say go for it. He's likely the best candidate in the race, objectively speaking. I don't vote for the best candidate in the race, however, and I don't vote strategically. I vote for the person that I think would make a good president. I don't think Gary Johnson would make a good president, so I won't vote for him, and since he's probably the best candidate running I won't vote at all. I don't expect I'll ever vote for president again, frankly. My first vote ever was for Ron Paul in 2008, and my last vote was for Ron Paul in 2012. I'm happy for that to be the end of my voting career if nobody else comes along. Though, full disclosure, I am embarrassed to admit I voted for Bob Barr in the 2008 general election, who is much worse than Johnson is.

 

[kaz]

Oh, thank goodness. Finally, someone to explain libertarianism to libertarians. We've been lost without you. Your liberty is derived from property rights, that's where the limitations exist. For example, you have the freedom of the press, but it's not an abridgement of your press freedom if the New York Times refuses to publish your op-ed because it's their property. Likewise, if I decide not to serve you in my business it's not an affront to your liberty because it's my property. To force the New York Times to publish your op-ed or to force me to serve you against my will is the affront to liberty, because you're violating property rights. That has nothing to do with anarchy, and everything to do with respecting property rights.

Not really. You can't do whatever you want on your property, can you? Murder is still illegal on your property.

You don't have to set up a business on your property, do you? But if you decided to set up a business, you decide to follow the rules the country sets for businesses.

Now some Libertarians might say that a person should be able to serve whoever they like on their business and not serve others they don't like. However others might say that this takes away the liberty of individuals so isn't libertarianism.

And yet as libertarians I think we're the ones who get to define libertarianism. And no, that doesn't mean you get to murder people on your property, because people have a property right in themselves and murder is an example of a violation of property rights. Me not wanting to serve you a hamburger does not violate your property rights at all, but you forcing me to would violate my property rights. Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property. That's the definition.

Then define Libertarianism so that it isn't Anarchy.

Murder is a violation of property rights? What?

I think you need to define "property rights" first.

I repeat, "Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property." That doesn't have to mean anarchy, just ask any of the minarchist libertarians on this board, but it may mean anarchy to the anarcho-capitalists.

Yes, murder is a violation of property rights, of course it's not in the same realm as, say, stealing someone's television, but a violation of a higher degree. We all know what property is, but, from a libertarian perspective, my property in my material objects is derived from self-ownership. In other words, a property right in myself and my own body. Therefore, we have to logically conclude that any harm that befalls my body, assault, murder, rape, etc, is a violation of my property right in myself.

I really think you shouldn't stick to calling your body your property.

However, if we're going to deal with that, then here's my case.

If I hit you in the face, that's assault, and goes against Libertarianism.
If I call you an insult, isn't that also assault, it could potentially harm the other person, make them feel bad, etc?

So, if I walk into a bakery and the bakery says "we're not serving you because you're a n*gger [or add any other insult]" then this goes against your supposed property rights.

Wow, that was stupid

 

[Divine Wind]

....I don't expect I'll ever vote for president again, frankly. My first vote ever was for Ron Paul in 2008, and my last vote was for Ron Paul in 2012. I'm happy for that to be the end of my voting career if nobody else comes along. Though, full disclosure, I am embarrassed to admit I voted for Bob Barr in the 2008 general election, who is much worse than Johnson is.

There are more items on an election ballot than voting for POTUS.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And yet as libertarians I think we're the ones who get to define libertarianism. And no, that doesn't mean you get to murder people on your property, because people have a property right in themselves and murder is an example of a violation of property rights. Me not wanting to serve you a hamburger does not violate your property rights at all, but you forcing me to would violate my property rights. Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property. That's the definition.

Then define Libertarianism so that it isn't Anarchy.

Murder is a violation of property rights? What?

I think you need to define "property rights" first.

I repeat, "Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property." That doesn't have to mean anarchy, just ask any of the minarchist libertarians on this board, but it may mean anarchy to the anarcho-capitalists.

Yes, murder is a violation of property rights, of course it's not in the same realm as, say, stealing someone's television, but a violation of a higher degree. We all know what property is, but, from a libertarian perspective, my property in my material objects is derived from self-ownership. In other words, a property right in myself and my own body. Therefore, we have to logically conclude that any harm that befalls my body, assault, murder, rape, etc, is a violation of my property right in myself.

I really think you shouldn't stick to calling your body your property.

However, if we're going to deal with that, then here's my case.

If I hit you in the face, that's assault, and goes against Libertarianism.
If I call you an insult, isn't that also assault, it could potentially harm the other person, make them feel bad, etc?

So, if I walk into a bakery and the bakery says "we're not serving you because you're a n*gger [or add any other insult]" then this goes against your supposed property rights.

It's a fair question, but no. Insulting someone is not the same as assaulting someone. In the latter, you cause physical harm to somebody else against their will, in the former you say something mean and that person chooses how to respond. In other words, by insulting someone you're not forcing them to feel bad about it, they're choosing to do so. For example, I've been insulted many times on this board and I don't think I've ever let it ruin my day. My property, including myself, were completely unharmed by being called a "moron" or what have you.

To answer the second part of your post, about the baker, we don't have a property right in what other people think about us, as they own their own bodies, and they have the right to say whatever they want on their own property. So in the example of your racist baker, it is not a violation of anybody's property rights for the baker to think a certain race is bad, to express that that race is bad inside their own property, and to refuse to associate with anybody of that race. That doesn't mean we endorse the baker's worldview, merely that we accept their right not to associate with anybody that they don't want to on their own property so that we may have the same right when it comes time to shun that baker for being a jerk.

In one it's physical harm. In the other emotional harm. Are you saying physical harm will always be worse than emotional harm? I disagree, and disagree massively.

Though, what if I say "no, I'm not serving you, you dirty f*cking n*igger", then the shop gets raided by a bunch of black people and the owners get lynched. What then?

They caused emotional harm, they caused a situation to happen that involved violence, and those who committed the violence are the ones guilty of the killing, but those who said the things that were wrong were hardly innocent either.

This goes back to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, doesn't it?

If you cause harm through your choice of words, then you are not protected. This is a very well known part of the theory of Human Rights.

I'm not saying that at all, but how does one measure emotional harm? Whereas I can draw an objective distinction between assault, rape, and murder, I cannot draw a distinction between having one's feelings hurt and something worse. Furthermore, I'm saying that one can decide how to react to so-called mental harm. How you choose to feel or respond is your choice. Nobody can force you to feel anything. For example, no matter how hard you tried, you couldn't possibly offend me. You could annoy me, perhaps, but you couldn't offend me. That's my choice.

The people raiding the bakery and murdering people are guilty of crimes. The people who said words are not. It's that simple. They may be jerks and terrible people, but they're not guilty of a crime.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater is wrong, but the Supreme Court got the reason wrong. They said you have free speech up to a point, but that's incorrect. The freedom of speech in a movie theater doesn't exist at all. It is not your property, therefore you can't say whatever you like. That said, even the theater owner could not walk into the crowded theater and yell fire, as that would constitute a violation of the property rights of the people who paid to watch a movie in the theater. By paying to watch the movie the theater-goers purchased a right to use that property, and by shouting fire the theater owner would be violating their right and owe them restitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

....I don't expect I'll ever vote for president again, frankly. My first vote ever was for Ron Paul in 2008, and my last vote was for Ron Paul in 2012. I'm happy for that to be the end of my voting career if nobody else comes along. Though, full disclosure, I am embarrassed to admit I voted for Bob Barr in the 2008 general election, who is much worse than Johnson is.

There are more items on an election ballot than voting for POTUS.

True, but as this topic is relating to presidential politics my response was tailored accordingly. I also distinguished that I was discussing voting for president. Aside from ballot initiatives that may raise my taxes, my interest in local politics is nil. State politics might grab my attention if a good person were running for congress or governor, or, again, some issue that might raise my taxes. However, my biggest concern is foreign policy, which is federal, obviously. I keep an eye on the congressional races, but, like the presidential elections, nobody good ever runs, so I don't vote in those either.

 

[Divine Wind]

....I don't expect I'll ever vote for president again, frankly. My first vote ever was for Ron Paul in 2008, and my last vote was for Ron Paul in 2012. I'm happy for that to be the end of my voting career if nobody else comes along. Though, full disclosure, I am embarrassed to admit I voted for Bob Barr in the 2008 general election, who is much worse than Johnson is.

There are more items on an election ballot than voting for POTUS.

True, but as this topic is relating to presidential politics my response was tailored accordingly. I also distinguished that I was discussing voting for president. Aside from ballot initiatives that may raise my taxes, my interest in local politics is nil. State politics might grab my attention if a good person were running for congress or governor, or, again, some issue that might raise my taxes. However, my biggest concern is foreign policy, which is federal, obviously. I keep an eye on the congressional races, but, like the presidential elections, nobody good ever runs, so I don't vote in those either.

I've always been taught it's a civic duty to vote and I do vote.

If the prime contenders in an election are too repugnant for my vote, I'll vote for the least likely to win just so those who are running know my vote is out there and they didn't get it. A person who doesn't vote at all doesn't register on their radar.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

....I don't expect I'll ever vote for president again, frankly. My first vote ever was for Ron Paul in 2008, and my last vote was for Ron Paul in 2012. I'm happy for that to be the end of my voting career if nobody else comes along. Though, full disclosure, I am embarrassed to admit I voted for Bob Barr in the 2008 general election, who is much worse than Johnson is.

There are more items on an election ballot than voting for POTUS.

True, but as this topic is relating to presidential politics my response was tailored accordingly. I also distinguished that I was discussing voting for president. Aside from ballot initiatives that may raise my taxes, my interest in local politics is nil. State politics might grab my attention if a good person were running for congress or governor, or, again, some issue that might raise my taxes. However, my biggest concern is foreign policy, which is federal, obviously. I keep an eye on the congressional races, but, like the presidential elections, nobody good ever runs, so I don't vote in those either.

I've always been taught it's a civic duty to vote and I do vote.

If the prime contenders in an election are too repugnant for my vote, I'll vote for the least likely to win just so those who are running know my vote is out there and they didn't get it. A person who doesn't vote at all doesn't register on their radar.

And yet if nobody voted it would register on their radar.

 

[Divine Wind]

And yet if nobody voted it would register on their radar.

True, but illogical. They'll always vote for themselves. It's not like everyone won't vote so, therefore, no one will be elected. How many times has that ever happened?

I've seen some elections where only one person was running for a position. Sometimes I vote for them, sometimes not. By voting, however, I register "on the radar". Mayor may reap 40,000 votes out of 60,000 voting, but a judge running unopposed may only have 20,000 votes. What kind of message does that send? It says the judge isn't very popular and, in the next election, maybe someone will step up and challenge them for the office. The judge, knowing this, may decide to conduct themselves a little differently knowing he was elected by only 30% of those voting.

He probably won't give a shit about eligible voters who stayed home, but he'll certainly care about those who actually show up on election day.

 

[PredFan]

I'm a libertarian and I can't vote for Johnson. He's an open borders guy and his VP is a gun control advocate.

I'll vote like bertarian locally as always but I can't justify voting for Johnson.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And yet if nobody voted it would register on their radar.

True, but illogical. They'll always vote for themselves. It's not like everyone won't vote so, therefore, no one will be elected. How many times has that ever happened?

I've seen some elections where only one person was running for a position. Sometimes I vote for them, sometimes not. By voting, however, I register "on the radar". Mayor may reap 40,000 votes out of 60,000 voting, but a judge running unopposed may only have 20,000 votes. What kind of message does that send? It says the judge isn't very popular and, in the next election, maybe someone will step up and challenge them for the office. The judge, knowing this, may decide to conduct themselves a little differently knowing he was elected by only 30% of those voting.

He probably won't give a shit about eligible voters who stayed home, but he'll certainly care about those who actually show up on election day.

And how has being on the radar helped anything? Not at all. If only say 10% of eligible voters actually voted that would be a bigger message than voting for Gary Johnson. It would be a message that our system is obviously rigged and a joke. The answer to expose the system isn't voting just for the sake of voting, but being completely divorced from the system and denying it your acquiescence.

 

[hangover]

Gary Johnson and William Weld have proved that there is a cure for stupidity, by changing from the GOP to the Libertarian party. Amazing! Trump may be the cure!