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

[AnCap'n_Murica]

How are those rules decided upon or enforced?
Based on human history, yes, society and rules do mean you'll have government. Again I'll ask, where/when has humanity lived in large numbers in relatively close proximity without some form of government?

Even if there have been societies with no form of government, do you think that is practical at all in the modern world?

 

[Onyx]

Yes and all of these same things would happen under anarchy.

Conjecture.

Back up your claim.

Lol. Not if you know anything about human nature.

Conjecture.

Back up your claim.

an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/
noun

1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
   "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
   synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem,tumult, turmoil
   "conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"
   • absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

I use different but also legitimate philosophical definitions.

Those are how the state has conditioned anarchism to be defined.

My personal advocation is the abolition of the state, which is consistent with classical anarchist philosophy.

 

[Onyx]

I cannot even really believe that people would consider anarchy a valid . . . anything!

Anarchists cannot really believe that people still support systems that have been responsible for so much human misery.

I imagine Stockholm syndrome is about as logical a reason that can be come up with.

Spot on.

I cannot believe we are forced to debate something so goddamn simple minded.

Human beings are social creatures. Inevitably, when people gather in numbers, some sort of social structure forms. Government of some sort is probably an unavoidable by-product of enough people living in close distance of each other, without even taking into account things like greed, desire for power over others, or a need to impose order on the world.

Have you been listening?

I believe in voluntary mutual governance. I do not believe in the state.

Most philosophical and political anarchists have advocated social structure and community principles. Clearly you are unsure of what is being advocated here.

As for whether the state is an inevitably, our collective human history has proven that many societies have lasted long periods of time never having been subjected to the state. The state is socially constructed afterall.

 

[Onyx]

Society and rules don't automatically mean you'll have government.

It depends on how you define government.

Unfortunately, the modern definition of government kind of shifts the premise of what original anarchists were arguing for.

Although I understand your point. Anarchy is the natural social order, and adhering to natural law is not an advocation for the state.

 

[Onyx]

How are those rules decided upon or enforced?

There is only one rule to live by in an anarchist society.

Variations of the NAP warrant violence in self-defense against those that use violence.

Based on human history, yes, society and rules do mean you'll have government.

Governance is a natural consequence of communication.

The established government is the unnatural result of appointing rulers. The established government is the state. The state is evil.

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

Even if there have been societies with no form of government, do you think that is practical at all in the modern world?

I can give you a couple of modern societies that have adhered heavily to anarchist principals, and were virtually stateless (there is some debate with the EZLN)

Many communities and societies existed in these territories that were not chaotic and often economically prosperous.

The RIAU and CNT were destroyed by outside force. The only matter in question is how you go about winning the war of independence, and stopping statist entities from stepping on the free society afterwards

 

[flacaltenn]

Objectively he's probably better by some percentage if these things were quantifiable. However, he's not so much better that it would make that much of a difference if he were elected. He came out in favor of a carbon tax and a guaranteed basic income, and claimed that Mitt Romney of all people would definitely have a place in his administration. I could get that nonsense from Clinton or Trump, so why get excited?

Mitt Romney is qualified to serve in any number of positions. And would add to the ability to mediate in consensus problems that SHOULD and NEED to be fixed. He's wrong on jumping into a carbon tax --- and as I told you before -- there is already a "guaranteed minimum income" with the EITC. It sets no real precedent.

At this point -- it's disappointing that he confuses progressive solutions with libertarian solutions. But as a mediation team to put America into a partisan "time-out" -- there has NEVER been a better opportunity to do that.

If Johnson/Weld truly are oblivious to Libertarian principles and turn out to be just "middle of road" peacemakers --- the LParty will primary them out and replace them with folks that have a set of actual principles. In the meantime -- the outcome for America is better with them --- than with ClinTrump. Either of them wins -- the flaming and scandals get worse. And nothing gets done.

Excellent point, and my anti-Hillary vote could go from Trump to him if his numbers climb. I disagree about the LP voting him out. No matter what he does, they will be so happy he won they will keep him there. I've never been so disappointed in the LP as when they made him their candidate. there were so many other greater candidates.

I only saw ONE other possible candidate. Austin Peterson. And he was gonna be seen as preaching Libertarian principles, not campaigning on issues that folks care about. I think you CAN do both. But people are not in the mood to be lectured right now about visions or principles or a 3rd way...

And there is no argument that Johnson/Weld are qualified to serve. Whereas, it's OK for a businessman to want to serve -- but maybe not one who wants voters to convert to a purist view of any particular political philosophy.

My feeling is -- you make the priorities from what you're handed. And you SOLVE THEM in the manner that you believe is right. You don't require a different playing field from what you're handed before you suit up to play..
.

Austin Peterson was the one I wanted. He's head and shoulders better than Johnson.

I hear you. But the question is better at WHAT? Explaining and rigidly adhering to Libertarian philosophy? Yeah -he is. But the electorate doesn't want ACADEMIC proposals when it comes to dealing with the current state of affairs. And the avg American will fully retreat from ideologues lecturing them about "ideals". You need managers who MAKE those POINTS by EXAMPLE. And hopefully, these skilled guys can lay some "classic Liberalism" on the American public while they are gutting the engine and rebuilding it..

 

[Onyx]

How are those rules decided upon or enforced?

There is only one rule to live by in an anarchist society.

Variations of the NAP warrant violence in self-defense against those that use violence iLol. Not if you know anything about human to purposefully cause harm.

Based on human history, yes, society and rules do mean you'll have government.

Governance is a natural consequence of communication.

The established government is the unnatural result of appointing rulers. The established government is the state. The state is evil.

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

Even if there have been societies with no form of government, do you think that is practical at all in the modern world?

I can give you a couple of modern societies that have/had adhered heavily to anarchist principals, and were virtually stateless (there is some debate)

Many communities and societies existed in these territories that were not chaotic and often economically prosperous.

The RIAU and CNT were destroyed by outside military force. The only matter in question is how you go about winning the war of independence, and stopping statist entities from stepping on the free society.

 

[Montrovant]

How are those rules decided upon or enforced?
Based on human history, yes, society and rules do mean you'll have government. Again I'll ask, where/when has humanity lived in large numbers in relatively close proximity without some form of government?

Even if there have been societies with no form of government, do you think that is practical at all in the modern world?

View attachment 87246

Thanks for the non-answer.

 

[Montrovant]

How are those rules decided upon or enforced?

There is only one rule to live by in an anarchist society.

Variations of the NAP warrant violence in self-defense against those that use violence iLol. Not if you know anything about human to purposefully cause harm.

Based on human history, yes, society and rules do mean you'll have government.

Governance is a natural consequence of communication.

The established government is the unnatural result of appointing rulers. The established government is the state. The state is evil.

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

Even if there have been societies with no form of government, do you think that is practical at all in the modern world?

I can give you a couple of modern societies that have adhered heavily to anarchist principals, and were virtually stateless (there is some debate with the EZLN)

Many communities and societies existed in these territories that were not chaotic and often economically prosperous.

The RIAU and CNT were destroyed by outside force. The only matter in question is how you go about winning the war of independence, and stopping statist entities from stepping on the free society afterwards

From the little I saw about it, the CNT still exists.

How, exactly, are you defining anarchism? Is it simply a lack of representative governance?

 

[Onyx]

From the little I saw about it, the CNT still exists.

The liberation of Catalonia by anarchist trade unions was crushed near the end of the Spanish Civil War.

The CNT was the largest trade union in revolutionary Catalonia.

George Orwell wrote an entire book where he gave praise to anarchists in Catalonia. You should read it.

How, exactly, are you defining anarchism?

There are many legitimate ways to define it, and they all practically mean the same thing. Here are my three favorites.

No state.
No rulers.
No established government.

Is it simply a lack of representative governance?

Many classical anarchists used to use the term government interchangeably with the state.

In modern times, government has been defined as simply a means of social management.

If you define anarchists as opposing social management, then that would incorrectly describe the beliefs of almost every anarchist.

That is why most modern anarchist literature and philosophy speaks more about opposing the state rather than the government, although there is still some disconnect in the community.

Sorry that there is no easier answer. I hate the confusion as well.

 

[Anathema]

Define Conservative for us.

A Conservative is an individual who embraces the concepts of Right and Wrong as unchanging, eternal, and definite. They believe in Traditional Morals and Values as the only acceptable way to live life.

 

[dblack]

Objectively he's probably better by some percentage if these things were quantifiable. However, he's not so much better that it would make that much of a difference if he were elected. He came out in favor of a carbon tax and a guaranteed basic income, and claimed that Mitt Romney of all people would definitely have a place in his administration. I could get that nonsense from Clinton or Trump, so why get excited?

Mitt Romney is qualified to serve in any number of positions. And would add to the ability to mediate in consensus problems that SHOULD and NEED to be fixed. He's wrong on jumping into a carbon tax --- and as I told you before -- there is already a "guaranteed minimum income" with the EITC. It sets no real precedent.

At this point -- it's disappointing that he confuses progressive solutions with libertarian solutions. But as a mediation team to put America into a partisan "time-out" -- there has NEVER been a better opportunity to do that.

If Johnson/Weld truly are oblivious to Libertarian principles and turn out to be just "middle of road" peacemakers --- the LParty will primary them out and replace them with folks that have a set of actual principles. In the meantime -- the outcome for America is better with them --- than with ClinTrump. Either of them wins -- the flaming and scandals get worse. And nothing gets done.

Excellent point, and my anti-Hillary vote could go from Trump to him if his numbers climb. I disagree about the LP voting him out. No matter what he does, they will be so happy he won they will keep him there. I've never been so disappointed in the LP as when they made him their candidate. there were so many other greater candidates.

I only saw ONE other possible candidate. Austin Peterson. And he was gonna be seen as preaching Libertarian principles, not campaigning on issues that folks care about. I think you CAN do both. But people are not in the mood to be lectured right now about visions or principles or a 3rd way...

And there is no argument that Johnson/Weld are qualified to serve. Whereas, it's OK for a businessman to want to serve -- but maybe not one who wants voters to convert to a purist view of any particular political philosophy.

My feeling is -- you make the priorities from what you're handed. And you SOLVE THEM in the manner that you believe is right. You don't require a different playing field from what you're handed before you suit up to play..
.

Austin Peterson was the one I wanted. He's head and shoulders better than Johnson.

I hear you. But the question is better at WHAT? Explaining and rigidly adhering to Libertarian philosophy? Yeah -he is. But the electorate doesn't want ACADEMIC proposals when it comes to dealing with the current state of affairs. And the avg American will fully retreat from ideologues lecturing them about "ideals". You need managers who MAKE those POINTS by EXAMPLE. And hopefully, these skilled guys can lay some "classic Liberalism" on the American public while they are gutting the engine and rebuilding it..

Yeah. The soft-pedaling is exactly why I'm on board. Voters need to understand that Libertarians are NOT wild-eyed ideologues bent on anarchy. This is the perfect opportunity to achieve that. Johnson and Weld, whatever their shortcomings on the strict libertarian rubric, are just the kind of reasonable, moderate messengers we need.

 

[dblack]

Define Conservative for us.

A Conservative is an individual who embraces the concepts of Right and Wrong as unchanging, eternal, and definite. They believe in Traditional Morals and Values as the only acceptable way to live life.

Exactly. Libertarians aren't (that kind of) conservatives. We're not pre-occupied with government as moral authority. We want government to protect our freedom to live by the morals we choose.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mitt Romney is qualified to serve in any number of positions. And would add to the ability to mediate in consensus problems that SHOULD and NEED to be fixed. He's wrong on jumping into a carbon tax --- and as I told you before -- there is already a "guaranteed minimum income" with the EITC. It sets no real precedent.

At this point -- it's disappointing that he confuses progressive solutions with libertarian solutions. But as a mediation team to put America into a partisan "time-out" -- there has NEVER been a better opportunity to do that.

If Johnson/Weld truly are oblivious to Libertarian principles and turn out to be just "middle of road" peacemakers --- the LParty will primary them out and replace them with folks that have a set of actual principles. In the meantime -- the outcome for America is better with them --- than with ClinTrump. Either of them wins -- the flaming and scandals get worse. And nothing gets done.

Excellent point, and my anti-Hillary vote could go from Trump to him if his numbers climb. I disagree about the LP voting him out. No matter what he does, they will be so happy he won they will keep him there. I've never been so disappointed in the LP as when they made him their candidate. there were so many other greater candidates.

I only saw ONE other possible candidate. Austin Peterson. And he was gonna be seen as preaching Libertarian principles, not campaigning on issues that folks care about. I think you CAN do both. But people are not in the mood to be lectured right now about visions or principles or a 3rd way...

And there is no argument that Johnson/Weld are qualified to serve. Whereas, it's OK for a businessman to want to serve -- but maybe not one who wants voters to convert to a purist view of any particular political philosophy.

My feeling is -- you make the priorities from what you're handed. And you SOLVE THEM in the manner that you believe is right. You don't require a different playing field from what you're handed before you suit up to play..
.

Austin Peterson was the one I wanted. He's head and shoulders better than Johnson.

I hear you. But the question is better at WHAT? Explaining and rigidly adhering to Libertarian philosophy? Yeah -he is. But the electorate doesn't want ACADEMIC proposals when it comes to dealing with the current state of affairs. And the avg American will fully retreat from ideologues lecturing them about "ideals". You need managers who MAKE those POINTS by EXAMPLE. And hopefully, these skilled guys can lay some "classic Liberalism" on the American public while they are gutting the engine and rebuilding it..

Yeah. The soft-pedaling is exactly why I'm on board. Voters need to understand that Libertarians are NOT wild-eyed ideologues bent on anarchy. This is the perfect opportunity to achieve that. Johnson and Weld, whatever their shortcomings on the strict libertarian rubric, are just the kind of reasonable, moderate messengers we need.

You don't want to make it sound like a Green Party race. Where it's highly idealized and somewhat pedagogic. So --- let the actions take place. See if they were paying attention. See what the priorities are.

The TownHall yesterday on FBN was much better. These guys have more appeal when someone like Stossel corners them about ideas that clash with Libertarian principles. It was the best hour of answering questions to date.

 

[Anathema]

Exactly. Libertarians aren't (that kind of) conservatives. We're not pre-occupied with government as moral authority. We want government to protect our freedom to live by the morals we choose.

Yep. LIBERALtarians are more interested in Freedom rather than Right and Wrong. That's because LIBERALtarians don't understand Right and Wrong, as Conservatives do. There is not, never has been, nor will there ever be, a Right to think, speak, or act in an Immoral or Wrong way.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. Libertarians aren't (that kind of) conservatives. We're not pre-occupied with government as moral authority. We want government to protect our freedom to live by the morals we choose.

Yep. LIBERALtarians are more interested in Freedom rather than Right and Wrong. That's because LIBERALtarians don't understand Right and Wrong, as Conservatives do. There is not, never has been, nor will there ever be, a Right to think, speak, or act in an Immoral or Wrong way.

It's funny. Republicans always wanna call us 'liberals' and Democrats write us off as 'far-rightwing'. Truth is, both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarians, eager to tell us all how to live. Fuck them both!

 

[Anathema]

..... 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.

 

[Katzndogz]

Mitt Romney is qualified to serve in any number of positions. And would add to the ability to mediate in consensus problems that SHOULD and NEED to be fixed. He's wrong on jumping into a carbon tax --- and as I told you before -- there is already a "guaranteed minimum income" with the EITC. It sets no real precedent.

At this point -- it's disappointing that he confuses progressive solutions with libertarian solutions. But as a mediation team to put America into a partisan "time-out" -- there has NEVER been a better opportunity to do that.

If Johnson/Weld truly are oblivious to Libertarian principles and turn out to be just "middle of road" peacemakers --- the LParty will primary them out and replace them with folks that have a set of actual principles. In the meantime -- the outcome for America is better with them --- than with ClinTrump. Either of them wins -- the flaming and scandals get worse. And nothing gets done.

Excellent point, and my anti-Hillary vote could go from Trump to him if his numbers climb. I disagree about the LP voting him out. No matter what he does, they will be so happy he won they will keep him there. I've never been so disappointed in the LP as when they made him their candidate. there were so many other greater candidates.

I only saw ONE other possible candidate. Austin Peterson. And he was gonna be seen as preaching Libertarian principles, not campaigning on issues that folks care about. I think you CAN do both. But people are not in the mood to be lectured right now about visions or principles or a 3rd way...

And there is no argument that Johnson/Weld are qualified to serve. Whereas, it's OK for a businessman to want to serve -- but maybe not one who wants voters to convert to a purist view of any particular political philosophy.

My feeling is -- you make the priorities from what you're handed. And you SOLVE THEM in the manner that you believe is right. You don't require a different playing field from what you're handed before you suit up to play..
.

Austin Peterson was the one I wanted. He's head and shoulders better than Johnson.

I hear you. But the question is better at WHAT? Explaining and rigidly adhering to Libertarian philosophy? Yeah -he is. But the electorate doesn't want ACADEMIC proposals when it comes to dealing with the current state of affairs. And the avg American will fully retreat from ideologues lecturing them about "ideals". You need managers who MAKE those POINTS by EXAMPLE. And hopefully, these skilled guys can lay some "classic Liberalism" on the American public while they are gutting the engine and rebuilding it..

Yeah. The soft-pedaling is exactly why I'm on board. Voters need to understand that Libertarians are NOT wild-eyed ideologues bent on anarchy. This is the perfect opportunity to achieve that. Johnson and Weld, whatever their shortcomings on the strict libertarian rubric, are just the kind of reasonable, moderate messengers we need.

Reasonable and moderate DOPER!

How the hell does this happen? An active drug addict is actually taken seriously.

 

[dblack]

Excellent point, and my anti-Hillary vote could go from Trump to him if his numbers climb. I disagree about the LP voting him out. No matter what he does, they will be so happy he won they will keep him there. I've never been so disappointed in the LP as when they made him their candidate. there were so many other greater candidates.

I only saw ONE other possible candidate. Austin Peterson. And he was gonna be seen as preaching Libertarian principles, not campaigning on issues that folks care about. I think you CAN do both. But people are not in the mood to be lectured right now about visions or principles or a 3rd way...

And there is no argument that Johnson/Weld are qualified to serve. Whereas, it's OK for a businessman to want to serve -- but maybe not one who wants voters to convert to a purist view of any particular political philosophy.

My feeling is -- you make the priorities from what you're handed. And you SOLVE THEM in the manner that you believe is right. You don't require a different playing field from what you're handed before you suit up to play..
.

Austin Peterson was the one I wanted. He's head and shoulders better than Johnson.

I hear you. But the question is better at WHAT? Explaining and rigidly adhering to Libertarian philosophy? Yeah -he is. But the electorate doesn't want ACADEMIC proposals when it comes to dealing with the current state of affairs. And the avg American will fully retreat from ideologues lecturing them about "ideals". You need managers who MAKE those POINTS by EXAMPLE. And hopefully, these skilled guys can lay some "classic Liberalism" on the American public while they are gutting the engine and rebuilding it..

Yeah. The soft-pedaling is exactly why I'm on board. Voters need to understand that Libertarians are NOT wild-eyed ideologues bent on anarchy. This is the perfect opportunity to achieve that. Johnson and Weld, whatever their shortcomings on the strict libertarian rubric, are just the kind of reasonable, moderate messengers we need.

Reasonable and moderate DOPER!

How the hell does this happen? An active drug addict is actually taken seriously.

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

 

[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.