LIB-ertarian Johnson has Lib Meltdown

[AmericanMom]

I ALMOST liked Johnson. Whoo ... I dodged a bullet that time!

They are NOT "undocumented" -- that just means that the paperwork isn't completed yet -- they are here illegally in violation of the sovereign laws of this nation and I really don't give a sloppy wet fart if the term offends them because it is the only accurate term, except for "foreign invaders".

I don't like them and I want them out of my country. The only way I'd accept them as simply being "undocumented" is if US sovereignty extended to the northern border of Guatemala.

Same here..
I wanted my vote to make a statement and thought about Johnson... Then I watch a town hall he and his sidekick did on CNN..

  Needless to say, he is nothing but a lib

[supsalemgr]

Same here..
I wanted my vote to make a statement and thought about Johnson... Then I watch a town hall he and his sidekick did on CNN..

  Needless to say, he is nothing but a lib

Always has been.

[ATimeForChoosing]

To the last Gary Johnson supporter to leave the room, please turn off the lights.

[Solar]

To the last Gary Johnson supporter to leave the room, please turn off the lights.

Are there really any leftist? Um, I mean left?

[jrodefeld]

As I've stated many times, I am a libertarian and Gary has tremendous shortcomings from my perspective.  Given the poor choices in this election season, I am considering voting for Gary even with his many flaws.  However, this particular clip doesn't bother me all that much.

Most libertarians believe in generally free immigration.  Some other libertarians take the Milton Freedman approach and believe that as long as we have a welfare state, we cannot have free immigration.  But all libertarians believe that, in a libertarian society with no State or a very minimal State, there will be no prohibitions on the free movement of people.  You have the right to tell anyone you want to stay off your property, but you don't have the right to prohibit people from moving onto other peoples property if they are invited.

I don't think Gary is trying to be PC here.  Knowing him like I do, he genuinely believes in free immigration and that immigrants benefit our society far more than they hurt our society.  The interviewer in this clip is absolutely correct that the act of crossing the border without going through the State-mandated proper channels is technically illegal.

This is just a semantic disagreement over which term you prefer.  For a libertarian, whether something is "legal" or "illegal" according to some arbitrary edict by the State is not really relevant to the moral judgment we render upon peoples actions.

Conservatives prefer the term "illegal" because it implies we should render a negative moral judgment on a person simply for the fact that they refused to abide by the State's legislation and bureaucratic processes. 

The Welfare State is another matter entirely.  I would be supportive of a policy whereby new immigrants are restricted from applying for social welfare programs for an indefinite period, or for five years, ten years or whatever is feasible.  In fact, I'd be supportive of repealing the Welfare State for American citizens as well.  But that is a separate issue to whether we should permit the blockading of our borders and interfering with the free movement of people.

What is your motivation for wanting to restrict immigration?  From my perspective, you can have any damn opinion about Mexicans or Muslims or any other group you wish.  You can not invite them onto your property and you can choose not to interact with them.  But you should not have the right to forcefully prevent the movement of people on property that you don't own or interfere with freedom of association.

Another thing that I find frustrating is when you insinuate that a libertarian, whether it's Gary Johnson, myself or anyone else, is really a LIBERAL in disguise when the argument being presented is in fact completely consistent with libertarian principles.  What you are really doing is trying to scare conservatives away from considering libertarianism by using a label that is incendiary to a conservative audience.  It is dishonest.

Favoring open borders and free immigration is something that most libertarians support.  Some liberals may support the same thing, but they support it for very different reasons. 

[Solar]

As I've stated many times, I am a libertarian and Gary has tremendous shortcomings from my perspective.  Given the poor choices in this election season, I am considering voting for Gary even with his many flaws.  However, this particular clip doesn't bother me all that much.

Most libertarians believe in generally free immigration. 

No they don't, the NEW LIBertarian does, the older Libertarian does not, as per the original movements edict written in the 70s.

Some other libertarians take the Milton Freedman approach and believe that as long as we have a welfare state, we cannot have free immigration.  But all libertarians believe that, in a libertarian society with no State or a very minimal State, there will be no prohibitions on the free movement of people.  You have the right to tell anyone you want to stay off your property, but you don't have the right to prohibit people from moving onto other peoples property if they are invited.

Who made you spokesman for the movement? Most Libertarians I know believe in knowing who is entering the country and demand all entrants go through a screening process, kind of like, you know, the laws currently on the books and not being enforced?

I don't think Gary is trying to be PC here.  Knowing him like I do, he genuinely believes in free immigration and that immigrants benefit our society far more than they hurt our society.  The interviewer in this clip is absolutely correct that the act of crossing the border without going through the State-mandated proper channels is technically illegal.

Tape speaks for itself.

This is just a semantic disagreement over which term you prefer.  For a libertarian, whether something is "legal" or "illegal" according to some arbitrary edict by the State is not really relevant to the moral judgment we render upon peoples actions.

Oh, I see, like the difference in pedophile, or "age is arbitrarily relative".

Conservatives prefer the term "illegal" because it implies we should render a negative moral judgment on a person simply for the fact that they refused to abide by the State's legislation and bureaucratic processes. 

No, you do not speak for Conservatives either, that is your opinion. Conservatives I know recognize laws, like when you want to borrow money, you have to prove who you are, and if you cross the border as an illegal, haven't proven your worth or ability self sustenance, one can safely assume you are more than likely up to no good.
You know, like every other free nation on the planet demands.

The Welfare State is another matter entirely.  I would be supportive of a policy whereby new immigrants are restricted from applying for social welfare programs for an indefinite period, or for five years, ten years or whatever is feasible.  In fact, I'd be supportive of repealing the Welfare State for American citizens as well.  But that is a separate issue to whether we should permit the blockading of our borders and interfering with the free movement of people.

What is your motivation for wanting to restrict immigration?  From my perspective, you can have any damn opinion about Mexicans or Muslims or any other group you wish.  You can not invite them onto your property and you can choose not to interact with them.  But you should not have the right to forcefully prevent the movement of people on property that you don't own or interfere with freedom of association.

So you're fine with flooding the nation with a bunch of unscreened refugees? Or do you believe there should be a limit?

Another thing that I find frustrating is when you insinuate that a libertarian, whether it's Gary Johnson, myself or anyone else, is really a LIBERAL in disguise when the argument being presented is in fact completely consistent with libertarian principles.  What you are really doing is trying to scare conservatives away from considering libertarianism by using a label that is incendiary to a conservative audience.  It is dishonest.

No, you'd be wrong, Gary is a RINO/lib, which is why he chose another party, even the Pubs wanted nothing to do with the guy.
You don't lose as a lib, then suddenly become a Libertarian, if anything, the transition is Conservative to Libertarian, or vice versa.

Favoring open borders and free immigration is something that most libertarians support.  Some liberals may support the same thing, but they support it for very different reasons.

As I stated earlier, that belief rests with new members of the movement, and most within the last decade.

[walkstall]

As I've stated many times, I am a libertarian and Gary has tremendous shortcomings from my perspective.  Given the poor choices in this election season, I am considering voting for Gary even with his many flaws.  However, this particular clip doesn't bother me all that much.

Most libertarians believe in generally free immigration.  Some other libertarians take the Milton Freedman approach and believe that as long as we have a welfare state, we cannot have free immigration.  But all libertarians believe that, in a libertarian society with no State or a very minimal State, there will be no prohibitions on the free movement of people.  You have the right to tell anyone you want to stay off your property, but you don't have the right to prohibit people from moving onto other peoples property if they are invited.

I don't think Gary is trying to be PC here.  Knowing him like I do, he genuinely believes in free immigration and that immigrants benefit our society far more than they hurt our society.  The interviewer in this clip is absolutely correct that the act of crossing the border without going through the State-mandated proper channels is technically illegal.

This is just a semantic disagreement over which term you prefer.  For a libertarian, whether something is "legal" or "illegal" according to some arbitrary edict by the State is not really relevant to the moral judgment we render upon peoples actions.

Conservatives prefer the term "illegal" because it implies we should render a negative moral judgment on a person simply for the fact that they refused to abide by the State's legislation and bureaucratic processes. 

The Welfare State is another matter entirely.  I would be supportive of a policy whereby new immigrants are restricted from applying for social welfare programs for an indefinite period, or for five years, ten years or whatever is feasible.  In fact, I'd be supportive of repealing the Welfare State for American citizens as well.  But that is a separate issue to whether we should permit the blockading of our borders and interfering with the free movement of people.

What is your motivation for wanting to restrict immigration?  From my perspective, you can have any damn opinion about Mexicans or Muslims or any other group you wish.  You can not invite them onto your property and you can choose not to interact with them.  But you should not have the right to forcefully prevent the movement of people on property that you don't own or interfere with freedom of association.

Another thing that I find frustrating is when you insinuate that a libertarian, whether it's Gary Johnson, myself or anyone else, is really a LIBERAL in disguise when the argument being presented is in fact completely consistent with libertarian principles.  What you are really doing is trying to scare conservatives away from considering libertarianism by using a label that is incendiary to a conservative audience.  It is dishonest.

Favoring open borders and free immigration is something that most libertarians support.  Some liberals may support the same thing, but they support it for very different reasons.

May all your neighbors be illegal criminal, Mexicans or Muslims for 10 miles around.

[walkstall]

No they don't, the NEW LIBertarian does, the older Libertarian does not, as per the original movements edict written in the 70s.
Who made you spokesman for the movement? Most Libertarians I know believe in knowing who is entering the country and demand all entrants go through a screening process, kind of like, you know, the laws currently on the books and not being enforced?
Tape speaks for itself.
Oh, I see, like the difference in pedophile, or "age is arbitrarily relative".
No, you do not speak for Conservatives either, that is your opinion. Conservatives I know recognize laws, like when you want to borrow money, you have to prove who you are, and if you cross the border as an illegal, haven't proven your worth or ability self sustenance, one can safely assume you are more than likely up to no good.
You know, like every other free nation on the planet demands.
So you're fine with flooding the nation with a bunch of unscreened refugees? Or do you believe there should be a limit?
No, you'd be wrong, Gary is a RINO/lib, which is why he chose another party, even the Pubs wanted nothing to do with the guy.
You don't lose as a lib, then suddenly become a Libertarian, if anything, the transition is Conservative to Libertarian, or vice versa.

As I stated earlier, that belief rests with new members of the movement, and most within the last decade.

Gary sounds just like Trump.  If you can not get a foot hold then change party's.  Will Gary become a Dem next time around.   

[quiller]

May all your neighbors be illegal criminal, Mexicans or Muslims for 10 miles around.

Move to Detroit. 

[quiller]

Kirk Baird is a cartoonist at the Toledo Blade in Ohio.

[jrodefeld]

No they don't, the NEW LIBertarian does, the older Libertarian does not, as per the original movements edict written in the 70s.
Who made you spokesman for the movement? Most Libertarians I know believe in knowing who is entering the country and demand all entrants go through a screening process, kind of like, you know, the laws currently on the books and not being enforced?
Tape speaks for itself.
Oh, I see, like the difference in pedophile, or "age is arbitrarily relative".
No, you do not speak for Conservatives either, that is your opinion. Conservatives I know recognize laws, like when you want to borrow money, you have to prove who you are, and if you cross the border as an illegal, haven't proven your worth or ability self sustenance, one can safely assume you are more than likely up to no good.
You know, like every other free nation on the planet demands.
So you're fine with flooding the nation with a bunch of unscreened refugees? Or do you believe there should be a limit?
No, you'd be wrong, Gary is a RINO/lib, which is why he chose another party, even the Pubs wanted nothing to do with the guy.
You don't lose as a lib, then suddenly become a Libertarian, if anything, the transition is Conservative to Libertarian, or vice versa.

As I stated earlier, that belief rests with new members of the movement, and most within the last decade.

As a libertarian, I think I know a bit more about libertarianism than you.  It is true that there are libertarians who support restrictions on immigration.  Immigration is one area where there is disagreement among libertarians.  However, those who support current restrictions on immigration do so because they believe that the current welfare state would render new immigrants as aggressors against private property as opposed to producers who add to the national wealth.

Libertarians are primarily concerned with opposing aggression against person or property.  If there are employers who want to hire low skilled foreign laborers and foreign laborers who want to be employed by these companies, who are you or anyone else to interfere with this free exchange? 

As long as we have a State, I concede that we should provide basic background checks, health inspections and so forth for new immigrants.  I don't believe that we should have a State as I've stated before. 

I don't believe that we should look down upon immigrants who are doing their best to feed their families and they cannot afford to abide by the unnecessarily bureaucratic and convoluted legal immigration process.

By my estimation, most libertarians are more in favor of free immigration as opposed to closed borders, even given the presence of the welfare State.  If you have evidence to the contrary, you are free to present it.

[jrodefeld]

May all your neighbors be illegal criminal, Mexicans or Muslims for 10 miles around.

I have no problem with Mexican or Muslim neighbors.  In fact, the nice gentleman who lives across the street from me is a Muslim and he is one of the nicest people I've met. 

Nobody is in favor of the free immigration of violent criminals.  In either a Statist society or a libertarian society, communities would want to prohibit violent and dangerous people from entering.  This does not describe most immigrants. 

[jrodefeld]

Kirk Baird is a cartoonist at the Toledo Blade in Ohio.

That cartoon accurately describes my assessment of Gary Johnson.  He is not an impressive person by any standards.  He is not well-read on libertarian philosophy or Austrian economics.  Yet, he is not Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. 

The most impressive libertarian politician in my lifetime has been Ron Paul.  I have some disagreements with him, but he is so good and so informed on so many important issues that whatever disagreements I have with him are relatively unimportant in the scheme of things. 

I can't say the same about Gary Johnson.  He is much better than Hillary and Donald but that is a low bar.  If I vote for him, it will be a vote in favor of the Libertarian Party and against the two party duopoly instead of a personal endorsement of Gary and everything he has ever said.

[walkstall]

I have no problem with Mexican or Muslim neighbors.  In fact, the nice gentleman who lives across the street from me is a Muslim and he is one of the nicest people I've met. 

Nobody is in favor of the free immigration of violent criminals.  In either a Statist society or a libertarian society, communities would want to prohibit violent and dangerous people from entering.  This does not describe most immigrants.

Wow!!  One    

[walkstall]

That cartoon accurately describes my assessment of Gary Johnson.  He is not an impressive person by any standards.  He is not well-read on libertarian philosophy or Austrian economics.  Yet, he is not Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. 

The most impressive libertarian politician in my lifetime has been Ron Paul.  I have some disagreements with him, but he is so good and so informed on so many important issues that whatever disagreements I have with him are relatively unimportant in the scheme of things. 

I can't say the same about Gary Johnson. He is much better than Hillary and Donald but that is a low bar.  If I vote for him, it will be a vote in favor of the Libertarian Party and against the two party duopoly instead of a personal endorsement of Gary and everything he has ever said.

Wow again.  So you will hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil for the party.  So you think these Wet Backs or Muslim will Follow the laws (rules) of the libertarians?