The libertarian case against Gary Johnson

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Aug 27, 2008
18,450
1,823
205
It's been claimed on this board in the past that Gary Johnson is more of a libertarian than Ron Paul, but usually by those who aren't libertarians and probably have little to no knowledge as to what a libertarian actually stands for. This perception mostly comes down to Johnson being pro-choice which is popularly believed to be the libertarian position on the issue, despite the fact that there is no actual libertarian consensus on the issue. In another thread I was asked why I wouldn't vote for Gary Johnson, who I presume will win the Libertarian Party nomination for President, so I'll explain here so as not to derail that thread.

Johnson was great as Governor of New Mexico, and I thought that he was somebody that I could support for President, but after a while it became clear that he wasn't really much of a libertarian at all.

Johnson supports for the so-called "Fair Tax" as a replacement to the federal income tax. Now while I'm sure this would simplify the tax code, and I have no problem with that in an of itself, this is not a libertarian position. The libertarian position would be to eliminate the income tax, repeal the 16th amendment, and replace it with absolutely nothing. No Fair Tax, and no Flat Tax. The libertarian doesn't believe that the government has any right to the fruits of our labor, and is supposed to believe in limited government. Therefore the libertarian would essentially advocate "starving the beast."

Johnson has claimed in the past that we need Guantanamo Bay Prison in Cuba.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRlGXuGHfrc]Governor Gary Johnson I would not close Gitmo.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

Now this really goes without saying, but a libertarian wouldn't believe that the government should be engaged in torture or indefinite detention. Now I remember that nearly a week after Johnson said this on Freedom Watch he put on his issues page that he would close Guantanamo Bay. Today the only mention I could find was this:

Individuals detained by the U.S., whether it be at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, must be given due process via the courts or military tribunals, and must not be held indefinitely without regard to those fundamental processes.

Foreign Policy

So Gary Johnson has essentially come down on two different sides to the issue of Guantanamo Bay, so who knows what he really believes?

Johnson has said in the past that he would be "uncomfortable" allowing a genocide to occur somewhere around the world, which essentially amounts to him wanting America to be the policeman of the world. Certainly to a lesser extent than say a Rick Santorum, but a libertarian doesn't advocate an interventionist foreign policy.

So that is why I won't be able to vote for Gary Johnson in the general election should be turnout to be the Libertarian Party nominee.
 
If RP doesn't get the nomination, I will vote for Gary Johnson.

He's not an ideal flag bearer, but he's better than the mainstream candidates.

I respect your decision and thought process on this though and agree with many points.
 
If RP doesn't get the nomination, I will vote for Gary Johnson.

He's not an ideal flag bearer, but he's better than the mainstream candidates.

I respect your decision and thought process on this though and agree with many points.

Same here. He's far, far better than Barr.
 
So your problem with Gary Johnson is that unlike Ron Paul, he's actually an adult who realizes that there are realities in politics?

Seriously, this is the best you got?
Yeah god forbid someone is principled and doesn't sit in the middle of every issue.
 
So your problem with Gary Johnson is that unlike Ron Paul, he's actually an adult who realizes that there are realities in politics?

Seriously, this is the best you got?

"Flip flopping, the adult thing to do."
 
Thanks for posting this Kevin. I'd hoped to discuss this with you at some point.

Johnson was great as Governor of New Mexico, and I thought that he was somebody that I could support for President, but after a while it became clear that he wasn't really much of a libertarian at all.

Johnson supports for the so-called "Fair Tax" as a replacement to the federal income tax. Now while I'm sure this would simplify the tax code, and I have no problem with that in an of itself, this is not a libertarian position. The libertarian position would be to eliminate the income tax, repeal the 16th amendment, and replace it with absolutely nothing. No Fair Tax, and no Flat Tax. The libertarian doesn't believe that the government has any right to the fruits of our labor, and is supposed to believe in limited government. Therefore the libertarian would essentially advocate "starving the beast."

I'd don't see much to be gained from debating who's more 'libertarian'. And while I do happen to think that the pro-choice position is the only one consistent with basic libertarian principles, you're right to point out that there's not a strong consensus in the party proper.

But I think it's wrong to cite Johnson's willingness to compromise as a weakness. The painful fact is, it's patently unrealistic to think that, even if a libertarian president were elected, Congress would repeal the income tax. Ideally, of course we want to limit government to what can be financed without overbearing intrusive policies like income tax. But in the mean time, the graduated income tax is a significant tool of government control. I'm not very excited about the Fair Tax either, but it's much more politically realistic, and would change things for the better. I can't begrudge Johnson for that.

Johnson has claimed in the past that we need Guantanamo Bay Prison in Cuba.

Governor Gary Johnson I would not close Gitmo.wmv - YouTube

Now this really goes without saying, but a libertarian wouldn't believe that the government should be engaged in torture or indefinite detention. Now I remember that nearly a week after Johnson said this on Freedom Watch he put on his issues page that he would close Guantanamo Bay. Today the only mention I could find was this:

Individuals detained by the U.S., whether it be at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, must be given due process via the courts or military tribunals, and must not be held indefinitely without regard to those fundamental processes.

Foreign Policy

So Gary Johnson has essentially come down on two different sides to the issue of Guantanamo Bay, so who knows what he really believes?

Sound bites on Fox don't count for much when it comes to real, complex policy decisions. I think you know where I stand on Guantanamo, and I certainly didn't like his answer in the video. But you're looking at answers to two different questions. The first was, should we close Guantanamo and let everyone go? The second is, should people be held there indefinitely without due process?

I'd like to know more about Johnson's views on this before I vote for him. But it raises an important point about why I think he would be a better leader than Paul, regardless of whether he's "more libertarian" or not. The most significant difference between Paul and Johnson, in my view, is that Johnson actually has executive leadership experience. Paul has always had the 'liberty' of being on the sidelines critiquing leadership. He's done a fantastic job at that, and his role has been invaluable, but it's not the same thing as trying to lead a government in the face of powerful opposition. When you're in that position, it's counter-productive to take extreme positions you can't implement. Leading means persuading the majority to do the right thing, and sometimes that requires compromise and selective battles. It requires choosing the best viable solution, which won't always be ideologically pure. This is why you see Johnson proposing policies like the Fair Tax, and considering the possibility that closing Gitmo this instant might be bad. We may not agree with his comments, and I'd urge him to take a harder line on both of those positions, but I respect that he takes the issues seriously enough to avoid the easy sound bite.
 
Last edited:
So your problem with Gary Johnson is that unlike Ron Paul, he's actually an adult who realizes that there are realities in politics?

Seriously, this is the best you got?
Yeah god forbid someone is principled and doesn't sit in the middle of every issue.

There's being principled, and there's being batshit crazy.

Of course, when you have a leaderless GOP that's afraid to call out the batshit, lest the batshittery go to a third party, and quivering in fear at a Talk Radio Rodeo Clown when he makes the most outrageous statements, then, yes, I guess you do have a problem.

Paul should have been squashed like a bug a long time ago.
 
Thanks for posting this Kevin. I'd hoped to discuss this with you at some point.

Johnson was great as Governor of New Mexico, and I thought that he was somebody that I could support for President, but after a while it became clear that he wasn't really much of a libertarian at all.

Johnson supports for the so-called "Fair Tax" as a replacement to the federal income tax. Now while I'm sure this would simplify the tax code, and I have no problem with that in an of itself, this is not a libertarian position. The libertarian position would be to eliminate the income tax, repeal the 16th amendment, and replace it with absolutely nothing. No Fair Tax, and no Flat Tax. The libertarian doesn't believe that the government has any right to the fruits of our labor, and is supposed to believe in limited government. Therefore the libertarian would essentially advocate "starving the beast."

I'd don't see much to be gained from debating who's more 'libertarian'. And while I do happen to think that the pro-choice position is the only one consistent with basic libertarian principles, you're right to point out that there's not a strong consensus in the party proper.

But I think it's wrong to cite Johnson's willingness to compromise as a weakness. The painful fact is, it's patently unrealistic to think that, even if a libertarian president were elected, Congress would repeal the income tax. Ideally, of course we want to limit government to what can be financed without overbearing intrusive policies like income tax. But in the mean time, the graduated income tax is a significant tool of government control. I'm not very excited about the Fair Tax either, but it's much more politically realistic, and would change things for the better. I can't begrudge Johnson for that.

Johnson has claimed in the past that we need Guantanamo Bay Prison in Cuba.

Governor Gary Johnson I would not close Gitmo.wmv - YouTube

Now this really goes without saying, but a libertarian wouldn't believe that the government should be engaged in torture or indefinite detention. Now I remember that nearly a week after Johnson said this on Freedom Watch he put on his issues page that he would close Guantanamo Bay. Today the only mention I could find was this:

Individuals detained by the U.S., whether it be at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, must be given due process via the courts or military tribunals, and must not be held indefinitely without regard to those fundamental processes.

Foreign Policy

So Gary Johnson has essentially come down on two different sides to the issue of Guantanamo Bay, so who knows what he really believes?

Sound bites on Fox don't count for much when it comes to real, complex policy decisions. I think you know where I stand on Guantanamo, and I certainly didn't like his answer in the video. But you're looking at answers to two different question. The first was, should we close Guantanamo and let everyone go? The second is, should people be held there indefinitely without due process?

I'd like to know more about Johnson's views on this before I vote for him. But it raises an important point about why I think he would be a better leader than Paul, regardless of whether he's "more libertarian" or not. The most significant difference between Paul and Johnson, in my view, is that Johnson actually has executive leadership experience. Paul has always had the 'liberty' of being on the sidelines critiquing leadership. He's done a fantastic job at that, and his role has been invaluable, but it's not the same thing as trying to lead a government in the face of powerful opposition. When you're in that position, it's counter-productive to take extreme positions you can't implement. Leading means persuading the majority to do the right thing, and sometimes that requires compromise and selective battles. It requires choosing the best viable solution, which won't always be the one the most ideological one. This is why you see Johnson proposing policies like the Fair Tax, and considering the possibility that closing Gitmo this instant might be bad. We may not agree with his comments, and I'd urge him to take a harder line on both of those positions, but I respect that he takes the issues seriously enough to avoid the easy sound bite.

I'm not critiquing Johnson for being willing to compromise. I'm critiquing Johnson for setting the bar so low to begin with. As I pointed out in that post, the Fair Tax may be superior to the income tax, but why make the Fair Tax an end in and of itself? The libertarian position is that the income tax should be repealed and replaced with nothing. If one were to compromise for a Fair Tax that does simplify the tax code and does lower taxes then that's a positive step, but it's still only a step. Johnson is making it an end.

When it comes to Guantanamo if you watch the video neither Johnson nor the Judge makes the distinction that you do. Nor does the Judge put the question in the way that you describe it. It's not only a choice between closing Gitmo and letting the prisoners go, or keeping Gitmo open. He also asks whether or not the prisoners should be tried for their alleged offenses. Johnson's answer is that we would need to "create that situation," a situation which included torture and indefinite detention, somewhere else if we didn't have Guantanamo Bay open, and he says that he agrees that they're "enemy combatants." That sounds like he supports the program in its current incarnation to me.
 
So your problem with Gary Johnson is that unlike Ron Paul, he's actually an adult who realizes that there are realities in politics?

Seriously, this is the best you got?
Yeah god forbid someone is principled and doesn't sit in the middle of every issue.

There's being principled, and there's being batshit crazy.

Of course, when you have a leaderless GOP that's afraid to call out the batshit, lest the batshittery go to a third party, and quivering in fear at a Talk Radio Rodeo Clown when he makes the most outrageous statements, then, yes, I guess you do have a problem.

Paul should have been squashed like a bug a long time ago.

Maybe the neocons and GOP establishment should have been "squashed" instead.
 
Thanks for posting this Kevin. I'd hoped to discuss this with you at some point.

Johnson was great as Governor of New Mexico, and I thought that he was somebody that I could support for President, but after a while it became clear that he wasn't really much of a libertarian at all.

Johnson supports for the so-called "Fair Tax" as a replacement to the federal income tax. Now while I'm sure this would simplify the tax code, and I have no problem with that in an of itself, this is not a libertarian position. The libertarian position would be to eliminate the income tax, repeal the 16th amendment, and replace it with absolutely nothing. No Fair Tax, and no Flat Tax. The libertarian doesn't believe that the government has any right to the fruits of our labor, and is supposed to believe in limited government. Therefore the libertarian would essentially advocate "starving the beast."

I'd don't see much to be gained from debating who's more 'libertarian'. And while I do happen to think that the pro-choice position is the only one consistent with basic libertarian principles, you're right to point out that there's not a strong consensus in the party proper.

But I think it's wrong to cite Johnson's willingness to compromise as a weakness. The painful fact is, it's patently unrealistic to think that, even if a libertarian president were elected, Congress would repeal the income tax. Ideally, of course we want to limit government to what can be financed without overbearing intrusive policies like income tax. But in the mean time, the graduated income tax is a significant tool of government control. I'm not very excited about the Fair Tax either, but it's much more politically realistic, and would change things for the better. I can't begrudge Johnson for that.

Johnson has claimed in the past that we need Guantanamo Bay Prison in Cuba.

Governor Gary Johnson I would not close Gitmo.wmv - YouTube

Now this really goes without saying, but a libertarian wouldn't believe that the government should be engaged in torture or indefinite detention. Now I remember that nearly a week after Johnson said this on Freedom Watch he put on his issues page that he would close Guantanamo Bay. Today the only mention I could find was this:



Foreign Policy

So Gary Johnson has essentially come down on two different sides to the issue of Guantanamo Bay, so who knows what he really believes?

Sound bites on Fox don't count for much when it comes to real, complex policy decisions. I think you know where I stand on Guantanamo, and I certainly didn't like his answer in the video. But you're looking at answers to two different question. The first was, should we close Guantanamo and let everyone go? The second is, should people be held there indefinitely without due process?

I'd like to know more about Johnson's views on this before I vote for him. But it raises an important point about why I think he would be a better leader than Paul, regardless of whether he's "more libertarian" or not. The most significant difference between Paul and Johnson, in my view, is that Johnson actually has executive leadership experience. Paul has always had the 'liberty' of being on the sidelines critiquing leadership. He's done a fantastic job at that, and his role has been invaluable, but it's not the same thing as trying to lead a government in the face of powerful opposition. When you're in that position, it's counter-productive to take extreme positions you can't implement. Leading means persuading the majority to do the right thing, and sometimes that requires compromise and selective battles. It requires choosing the best viable solution, which won't always be the one the most ideological one. This is why you see Johnson proposing policies like the Fair Tax, and considering the possibility that closing Gitmo this instant might be bad. We may not agree with his comments, and I'd urge him to take a harder line on both of those positions, but I respect that he takes the issues seriously enough to avoid the easy sound bite.

I'm not critiquing Johnson for being willing to compromise. I'm critiquing Johnson for setting the bar so low to begin with. As I pointed out in that post, the Fair Tax may be superior to the income tax, but why make the Fair Tax an end in and of itself? The libertarian position is that the income tax should be repealed and replaced with nothing. If one were to compromise for a Fair Tax that does simplify the tax code and does lower taxes then that's a positive step, but it's still only a step. Johnson is making it an end.

When it comes to Guantanamo if you watch the video neither Johnson nor the Judge makes the distinction that you do. Nor does the Judge put the question in the way that you describe it. It's not only a choice between closing Gitmo and letting the prisoners go, or keeping Gitmo open. He also asks whether or not the prisoners should be tried for their alleged offenses. Johnson's answer is that we would need to "create that situation," a situation which included torture and indefinite detention, somewhere else if we didn't have Guantanamo Bay open, and he says that he agrees that they're "enemy combatants." That sounds like he supports the program in its current incarnation to me.

Even Paul says he'd vote for the Fair Tax, because any decrease in taxation and simplifying of the tax structure in this country is a battle victory.

It doesn't necessarily mean it has to be the be all end all, it's a stepping stone. The fair tax has support and could get accomplished near term. It's worth working towards even if we don't support it as the ultimate solution.

I agree with dblack here, it's going to take small steps. We can't expect the 16th and the income to go, spending to drop to bare minimum levels, etc, in one presidential term. While we wait for that, we're being robbed blind on taxes. I'd take the Fair Tax any day over what we have now.

I've had to learn to tone myself down a bit the last couple years and be willing to accept the little achievements along the way rather than expecting everything or nothing at all.
 
I'm not critiquing Johnson for being willing to compromise. I'm critiquing Johnson for setting the bar so low to begin with. As I pointed out in that post, the Fair Tax may be superior to the income tax, but why make the Fair Tax an end in and of itself? The libertarian position is that the income tax should be repealed and replaced with nothing. If one were to compromise for a Fair Tax that does simplify the tax code and does lower taxes then that's a positive step, but it's still only a step. Johnson is making it an end.

I haven't really heard him say anything to indicate it would be an end. In fact, pretty much everything else he says indicates it would be a beginning. Why are you suggesting he wouldn't push for further limiting government and it's ability to tax us unnecessarily?

When it comes to Guantanamo if you watch the video neither Johnson nor the Judge makes the distinction that you do. Nor does the Judge put the question in the way that you describe it. It's not only a choice between closing Gitmo and letting the prisoners go, or keeping Gitmo open. He also asks whether or not the prisoners should be tried for their alleged offenses. Johnson's answer is that we would need to "create that situation," a situation which included torture and indefinite detention, somewhere else if we didn't have Guantanamo Bay open, and he says that he agrees that they're "enemy combatants." That sounds like he supports the program in its current incarnation to me.

Yeah, as I said, I wasn't happy with this exchange, and I intend to look into it more. I'm glad you posted it. But based on everything else I heard and read from him, he's not a supporter of torture and indefinite detention. What I heard him say here is that, after looking that reality of the situation - that we have, in fact, loaded ourselves up with prisoners who probably are dangerous terrorists, but for whatever reasons can't be tried and convicted - we can't just close Gitmo down. I don't like that answer any more than you do, but it might be the unfortunate truth.

In the end, I doubt it's the only option. I think we could, and should, close Gitmo and deal with the consequences. This will probably just be something I disagree with Johnson on. But like Paul, a couple of disagreements doesn't stop me from supporting him. Especially when I disagree with nearly everything the other candidates propose.
 
Last edited:
I used to be a neocon. Ron Paul woke me up. You wake up that abruptly and look back on what you used to support and it's such a strong revelation that you immediately want to demand all these changes at once because you can't believe how crazy the situation really was.

But you have to come to reality at some point and realize that it can't all happen at once. Just as it was a progressively slow move towards all this totalitarianism we've witnessed this country degrade to, it's going to be just as slow of a progression out of it.
 
Thanks for posting this Kevin. I'd hoped to discuss this with you at some point.



I'd don't see much to be gained from debating who's more 'libertarian'. And while I do happen to think that the pro-choice position is the only one consistent with basic libertarian principles, you're right to point out that there's not a strong consensus in the party proper.

But I think it's wrong to cite Johnson's willingness to compromise as a weakness. The painful fact is, it's patently unrealistic to think that, even if a libertarian president were elected, Congress would repeal the income tax. Ideally, of course we want to limit government to what can be financed without overbearing intrusive policies like income tax. But in the mean time, the graduated income tax is a significant tool of government control. I'm not very excited about the Fair Tax either, but it's much more politically realistic, and would change things for the better. I can't begrudge Johnson for that.



Sound bites on Fox don't count for much when it comes to real, complex policy decisions. I think you know where I stand on Guantanamo, and I certainly didn't like his answer in the video. But you're looking at answers to two different question. The first was, should we close Guantanamo and let everyone go? The second is, should people be held there indefinitely without due process?

I'd like to know more about Johnson's views on this before I vote for him. But it raises an important point about why I think he would be a better leader than Paul, regardless of whether he's "more libertarian" or not. The most significant difference between Paul and Johnson, in my view, is that Johnson actually has executive leadership experience. Paul has always had the 'liberty' of being on the sidelines critiquing leadership. He's done a fantastic job at that, and his role has been invaluable, but it's not the same thing as trying to lead a government in the face of powerful opposition. When you're in that position, it's counter-productive to take extreme positions you can't implement. Leading means persuading the majority to do the right thing, and sometimes that requires compromise and selective battles. It requires choosing the best viable solution, which won't always be the one the most ideological one. This is why you see Johnson proposing policies like the Fair Tax, and considering the possibility that closing Gitmo this instant might be bad. We may not agree with his comments, and I'd urge him to take a harder line on both of those positions, but I respect that he takes the issues seriously enough to avoid the easy sound bite.

I'm not critiquing Johnson for being willing to compromise. I'm critiquing Johnson for setting the bar so low to begin with. As I pointed out in that post, the Fair Tax may be superior to the income tax, but why make the Fair Tax an end in and of itself? The libertarian position is that the income tax should be repealed and replaced with nothing. If one were to compromise for a Fair Tax that does simplify the tax code and does lower taxes then that's a positive step, but it's still only a step. Johnson is making it an end.

When it comes to Guantanamo if you watch the video neither Johnson nor the Judge makes the distinction that you do. Nor does the Judge put the question in the way that you describe it. It's not only a choice between closing Gitmo and letting the prisoners go, or keeping Gitmo open. He also asks whether or not the prisoners should be tried for their alleged offenses. Johnson's answer is that we would need to "create that situation," a situation which included torture and indefinite detention, somewhere else if we didn't have Guantanamo Bay open, and he says that he agrees that they're "enemy combatants." That sounds like he supports the program in its current incarnation to me.

Even Paul says he'd vote for the Fair Tax, because any decrease in taxation and simplifying of the tax structure in this country is a battle victory.

It doesn't necessarily mean it has to be the be all end all, it's a stepping stone. The fair tax has support and could get accomplished near term. It's worth working towards even if we don't support it as the ultimate solution.

I agree with dblack here, it's going to take small steps. We can't expect the 16th and the income to go, spending to drop to bare minimum levels, etc, in one presidential term. While we wait for that, we're being robbed blind on taxes. I'd take the Fair Tax any day over what we have now.

I've had to learn to tone myself down a bit the last couple years and be willing to accept the little achievements along the way rather than expecting everything or nothing at all.

Like I said, I agree that this would be a plus. The difference between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson is that Ron Paul realizes and makes clear that the Fair Tax is just a step, whereas Johnson is making it an end. He supports the Fair Tax over having no tax at all, or at the least hasn't made it clear that he supports having no tax at all.
 
I'm not critiquing Johnson for being willing to compromise. I'm critiquing Johnson for setting the bar so low to begin with. As I pointed out in that post, the Fair Tax may be superior to the income tax, but why make the Fair Tax an end in and of itself? The libertarian position is that the income tax should be repealed and replaced with nothing. If one were to compromise for a Fair Tax that does simplify the tax code and does lower taxes then that's a positive step, but it's still only a step. Johnson is making it an end.

I haven't really heard him say anything to indicate it would be an end. In fact, pretty much everything else he says indicates it would be a beginning. Why are you suggesting he wouldn't push for further limiting government and it's ability to tax us unnecessarily?

When it comes to Guantanamo if you watch the video neither Johnson nor the Judge makes the distinction that you do. Nor does the Judge put the question in the way that you describe it. It's not only a choice between closing Gitmo and letting the prisoners go, or keeping Gitmo open. He also asks whether or not the prisoners should be tried for their alleged offenses. Johnson's answer is that we would need to "create that situation," a situation which included torture and indefinite detention, somewhere else if we didn't have Guantanamo Bay open, and he says that he agrees that they're "enemy combatants." That sounds like he supports the program in its current incarnation to me.

Yeah, as I said, I wasn't happy with this exchange, and I intend to look into it more. I'm glad you posted it. But based on everything else I heard and read from him, he's not a supporter of torture and indefinite detention. What I heard him say here is that, after looking that reality of the situation - that we have, in fact, loaded ourselves up with prisoners who probably are dangerous terrorists, but for whatever reasons can't be tried and convicted - we can't just close Gitmo down. I don't like that answer any more than you do, but it might be the unfortunate truth.

In the end, I doubt it's the only option. I think we could, and should, close Gitmo and deal with the consequences. This will probably just be something I disagree with Johnson on. But like Paul, a couple of disagreements doesn't stop me from supporting him. Especially when I disagree with nearly everything the other candidates propose.

He talks about it like it is an end, and doesn't bring up getting rid of the tax and not replacing it with anything at all. Therefore leading me to believe that the Fair Tax is an end for him.

I disagree with Ron Paul on some things as well, but when it comes to issues of war, torture, and indefinite detention I'm not willing to look the other way. These are issues that I'm not willing to compromise on. If Gary Johnson supports indefinite detention, as the video certainly indicates, then I can't support him.
 

Forum List

Back
Top