LIB-ertarian Johnson has Lib Meltdown

[quiller]

That cartoon accurately describes my assessment of Gary Johnson. 

And you drank the Un-Cola when you were young. Got it. Rebel without a cause.

[Solar]

As a libertarian, I think I know a bit more about libertarianism than you.

As an adult, I say you're wrong. I remember when the movement was born, I followed it for years, even became a Libertarian (once the Hippies were purged) for a time back when the first Bush infested the GOP.

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.

That seriously makes no sense at all. Are legal immigrants not allowed to own property?

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?

Why are you advocating for the Fed to use it's power to stifle States Rights? See the problem here? You want to use big govt to trample the Rights of individual States over an emotional issue.
Maybe you should think about that....

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 see, so as long as you have no say in immigration law, you accept them, but if you had your way, anarchy would be the rule?

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.

So it's fine that Mexico and Canada believe in the rule of law and enforce their immigration standards, but the US should not. Got it.

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.

Why should I? You have yet to prove your ludicrous assertions, so go ahead, show the stats.

[Solar]

And you drank the Un-Cola when you were young. Got it. Rebel without a cause.

Un-Cola? He wasn't even born yet.

[quiller]

Un-Cola? He wasn't even born yet.

His generation did not originate teenage rebellion and angst.

[Solar]

His generation did not originate teenage rebellion and angst.

Time memoriam....

[Hoofer]

Every Libertarian I've known who has run for public office has practically nothing in common, other than a handful of non-political things.

a.  They're all trying really hard to be "cool", "Hip" and "outside the mainstream" - and failing.  (freaks)
b.  They NEVER seek broad appeal, instead they seem to think the "farther out there" they are, the better.
c.  They don't want to be taken SERIOUSLY, because if they ever did get the WH, they wouldn't have a clue how Government functions, or that the bathroom's primary purpose is not a place to get high or laid.

Doesn't Gary look adorable when he's coming down off a high and loses his temper?   

[Solar]

Every Libertarian I've known who has run for public office has practically nothing in common, other than a handful of non-political things.

a.  They're all trying really hard to be "cool", "Hip" and "outside the mainstream" - and failing.  (freaks)
b.  They NEVER seek broad appeal, instead they seem to think the "farther out there" they are, the better.
c.  They don't want to be taken SERIOUSLY, because if they ever did get the WH, they wouldn't have a clue how Government functions, or that the bathroom's primary purpose is not a place to get high or laid.

Doesn't Gary look adorable when he's coming down off a high and loses his temper?   

The original founders of the movement came from the generation that thought anyone over 30 was the enemy.
These were the rejects of the hippie gen, the nerds if you will, the ones that didn't fit in any group, like a round peg in a square hole.
And what do we see happening today? Another generation without a party, in this case a bunch of idealistic kids clinging to the belief that anarchy is manageable, with no clue of how the world works beyond American borders.

[Billy's bayonet]

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.

Many professional criminals are some of the nicest most politest people you would ever meet....many live in nice neighborhoods, have a nice wife, well behaved kids, go to church etc. You'd never know what stone cold killers they really are. All part of their disguise. Read my sig line....

[jrodefeld]

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?

You really have no compunction about fully revealing your bigotry, do you?  And I don't use that term lightly.  As a libertarian, I've seen the Left accuse good people of racism when any clear-thinking person knows they are nothing of the sort.  And I've generally gone out of my way to defend the Right against unjust charges of racism, since the accusation is so often dishonestly applied.

However, referring to Mexicans as "wet backs" or speaking about Muslims in the derogatory terms ya'll obviously feel comfortable doing can only be described as ignorant bigotry.

Frankly, as distasteful as it might be, I'm not overly concerned about your private xenophobic thoughts.  I am concerned when you use or threaten to use the violence of the State to enforce your views on others.  You have no just right to prevent the free movement of people.

[walkstall]

You really have no compunction about fully revealing your bigotry, do you?  And I don't use that term lightly.  As a libertarian, I've seen the Left accuse good people of racism when any clear-thinking person knows they are nothing of the sort.  And I've generally gone out of my way to defend the Right against unjust charges of racism, since the accusation is so often dishonestly applied.

However, referring to Mexicans as "wet backs" or speaking about Muslims in the derogatory terms ya'll obviously feel comfortable doing can only be described as ignorant bigotry.

Frankly, as distasteful as it might be, I'm not overly concerned about your private xenophobic thoughts.  I am concerned when you use or threaten to use the violence of the State to enforce your views on others.  You have no just right to prevent the free movement of people.

I 'am NOT PC like you.  I call it as I see it.   Your utopia will only last in your own mind.  Until someone comes in and kicks your ass.  In this day and age State force is not going to be your problem for utopia.  All it will take is someone that is willing to walk up and take what you have.  Trust me the line is well over 2 blocks long. 

You come on my land, you best have a damn good reason why.  I would like to see you walk across into Mexico at a border cross without a passport, then come back in even in this day and age.   

[quiller]

However, referring to Mexicans as "wet backs" or speaking about Muslims in the derogatory terms ya'll obviously feel comfortable doing can only be described as ignorant bigotry.

ALL ABOARD!!!!

[Solar]

You really have no compunction about fully revealing your bigotry, do you?  And I don't use that term lightly.  As a libertarian, I've seen the Left accuse good people of racism when any clear-thinking person knows they are nothing of the sort.  And I've generally gone out of my way to defend the Right against unjust charges of racism, since the accusation is so often dishonestly applied.

However, referring to Mexicans as "wet backs" or speaking about Muslims in the derogatory terms ya'll obviously feel comfortable doing can only be described as ignorant bigotry.

Frankly, as distasteful as it might be, I'm not overly concerned about your private xenophobic thoughts.  I am concerned when you use or threaten to use the violence of the State to enforce your views on others.  You have no just right to prevent the free movement of people.

So you avoid my Reply #31 and go after what you consider low hanging fruit and call someone a racist because they spoke the truth?
None of what he said was derogatory in any way, Mexicans crossing the Rio Grands were given the term wet back because they had to swim to "ILLEGALLY" enter the US, Muscums will not follow our laws because their religion trump's our laws, so both statements were spot on.

But I'd like to address something else, your claim that you have:

"As a libertarian, I've seen the Left accuse good people of racism when any clear-thinking person knows they are nothing of the sort.  And I've generally gone out of my way to defend the Right against unjust charges of racism"

Libertarian is Right, you moronic LIB-ertarian! It's foolish libs like you that are destroying the Liberatrian movement.
The movement is nothing more than a stripped down version of Republicanism, the very thing TEA stands for, it's your ignorance of the movement and its core ideals that do it disservice, that keep libs like Johnson in power and keep the movement from getting more than 10% notice.

Now go back and address my reply or find another forum to shit your leftist bull on.

[Cryptic Bert]

Why are these other candidates so pompous? Johnson and Kasich should run on the Super Awesome Condescension ticket.

[jrodefeld]

The original founders of the movement came from the generation that thought anyone over 30 was the enemy.
These were the rejects of the hippie gen, the nerds if you will, the ones that didn't fit in any group, like a round peg in a square hole.
And what do we see happening today? Another generation without a party, in this case a bunch of idealistic kids clinging to the belief that anarchy is manageable, with no clue of how the world works beyond American borders.

You're wrong about this.  This is a gross caricature which I'll admit does reflect SOME libertarians but certainly not all.

The tradition of liberty dates back far further than the recent manifestation of libertarianism that emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  The true intellectual heritage of the modern libertarian movement is the Enlightenment-Era classical liberals and individualist anarchists who emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries.  Starting with John Locke and early economists such as Adam Smith, liberalism was a philosophy which recognized the concept of Natural Rights and strictly limited government, or the absence of government entirely.  Important early thinkers included Lysander Spooner, Frederick Bastiat, and Benjamin Tucker, among many others.

Also important to the development of modern libertarian thought were the Austrian School of economics.  Founded by Carl Menger in the middle of the 19th century, and subsequently developed by Eugen Böhm von Bawerk and, most importantly, Ludvig von Mises who wrote vital and important denunciations of Socialism and Central Banking during the first half of the 20th century.

The most important libertarian figure of the second half of the 20th century was undoubtedly Murray Rothbard, who was Mises's most important student. 

There was a strain of libertarianism that emerged in the late 1960s that comprised, essentially, "hippies of the Right".  This is how Ayn Rand described them and, though I am no Randian, this caricature has merit.

But this hardly describes all, or even most, libertarians. 

Libertarianism is a philosophy which is primarily concerned with the proper role of coercion in society.  It is the belief that coercion is essentially only morally defensible as a means of self defense and that aggression, which is unprovoked force applied to peaceful people, is inherently unjust. 

Different groups of libertarians attach very different social and cultural values to this view.  Thus, there are very socially conservative libertarians and very socially liberal libertarians.  There are fundamentalist Christian libertarians and radical atheist libertarians.  There are libertarians who engage in "alternative" lifestyles such as libertine drug use and sexual conduct.  There are others who follow very socially conservative habits and personally reject social liberalism and leftist viewpoints.

What all libertarians agree on is that they reject the use of aggression against others.  And thus, all libertarians either support a VERY limited State (minarchy) or the total abolition of the State (anarchy).

In regards to immigration, what business is it of yours if someone moves onto property that you don't own as long as they don't harm anyone in the process?  Libertarians believe in freedom of association.  National boundaries are merely arbitrary lines drawn on a map by an illegitimate political authority.  If there are employers in this country and workers in another country who want to associate with each other, then why should any third party have the ability to stop them from doing so?

[jrodefeld]

I 'am NOT PC like you.  I call it as I see it.   Your utopia will only last in your own mind.  Until someone comes in and kicks your ass.  In this day and age State force is not going to be your problem for utopia.  All it will take is someone that is willing to walk up and take what you have.  Trust me the line is well over 2 blocks long. 

You come on my land, you best have a damn good reason why.  I would like to see you walk across into Mexico at a border cross without a passport, then come back in even in this day and age.   

This is not about political correctness.  If someone were to walk around using words like "nigger", "wet back" and "towel head", they would not be a crusader against political correctness, they would just be a crude racist. 

If I were to say something that is absolutely true and supported by evidence, then that statement would not be racist.  Facts are not racist.  But your ignorant assertion that Muslims in the United States are more likely to be violent criminals is not supported by ANY evidence whatsoever.  Ignorance is at the heart of bigotry.

You are making a gross generalization about Muslims that is not based on any facts whatsoever.  And using a racial epithet such as "wet backs" is a clear give-away. 


On the other hand, if you were to say that a disproportionate number of inner-city blacks happen to be involved in gangs as opposed to many other ethnic groups or that a higher number of black children are born without fathers than most other ethnic groups, this would not be racist because both statements happen to be true.

There is a clear difference.  Being an overt racist is not a noble way to fight against political correctness.