I can't vote for Trump because he's mentally ill. He's clearly a malignant narcissist of the first water.
Not voting seems silly to me. Of the remaining grab bag of candidates, there's got to be someone out there who is vaguely palatable. The big issues for me are the debt, Islamic imperialism, the size and reach of government and the ability for states to make their own cultural laws. If it were available to me, I'd join a Federalist Party without delay.
Having said that, such an option is not available to me, but the Libertarian dude, Gary Johnson, offers what is clearly the best option. I spent some time listening to interviews of him from YouTube and here's how I think he stacks up on my big issues.
- Debt. He gets a perfect A+ on this. He understands about the fiscal crisis coming our way if we don't get the budget under control.
- Islamic imperialism. He's willing to use the word "Islamic" which is a big plus over almost everyone else. He's not an interventionist which may or may not be a good thing. He gets a solid C here.
- Size of government. Another perfect A+. He's a Libertarian after all.
- Federalism. He's too internally interventionist for me. He talks too much about his socially liberal positions and doesn't say that cultural issues should be left to the states. I'll give him a D here.
Downside - socially liberal. He's in favor of gay marriage and drug legalization and he's pro-choice. Other than the drug legalization, the Supreme Court has taken these off the table, so cultural concerns are almost irrelevant. As for drug legalization, he'd have a hard time getting that passed. In any case, I'm not sure they've not been legalized, de facto, already. See also: addiction rates, rising.
So there you have it. I'd love to see Gary poll high enough to get into the debates. That would really shake things up. For the #NeverTrump crowd and disgruntled conservatives, I can't see why Gary isn't the obvious choice.
10 comments:
Yes. I think the Libertarians are going to do better in this election than they have ever done in the past. They may even pick up some actual electoral votes! Which would go a long way towards getting them taken more seriously as a "real party".
If you voting for somebody you want, the you are not wasting your vote. Unfortunately
Americans always think we have only two choices.
Don't get your hopes up -- in the end, the Libertarians will *always* side with the leftists.
Gary Johnson is definitely the best choice...And why shouldn't drugs be legal? As an adult, if I choose to eat or smoke something, with full understanding of the effects, that seems like my business and no one else's. If I want to sit in my house drunk, or high, or whatever, and it has no effect on you, why can't I? Of course, if I'm driving or taking care of children while high, etc., then I'm putting other people at risk, and I have no right to do that. But, of course, alcohol is legal, as long as you aren't drunk driving or drunkenly neglecting children in your care, etc. There really is no difference, other than the varying effects on the body - which is up to me.
I'm mostly libertarian when it comes to substance use, but mostly because chemistry. It seems to me that there are virtually an infinite number of permutations of chemicals which would have a psychoactive effect. Can't legislate all of them. There will always be some who choose to self-medicate or experiment and it seems a waste of time and money to try and stop it. But that's pretty low on my list of importance. Overall, I'm looking at who the candidates would put on the Supreme Court.
The biggest problem with legalizing drugs is the part about responsibility. People will take no responsibility for their own actions. If drugs are legalized, the companies are going to have to flip the bill for detoxing employees who are abusers.
In my world, if drugs are legal, then companies could fire the employee for showing up to work ONCE stoned. Yes, that includes alcohol. And absolutely no unemployeement payments for being fired for that.
Insurance companies would have two types of policies, one that covers use of recreational drugs and one that doesn't. And any use would void the drug free policy.
Also, if you are found to be under the influence while caring for children, your children are taken away, without any latitude for a mamby pamby judge to do things in the "best interest" of the kid.
Remember the first Star Trek TNG, where they had a war in the past where all the soldiers were constantly on drugs and how we thought how ridiculous that was. We'd never have a society where drugs were so accepted as the norm. The progressive, amoral, social secular movement has us charging straight to that at full speed.
llion - my brothers and I are libertarian. We lean right and vote accordingly (i have voted republican since 98).
One of the foundations of libertarian-ism is personal responsibility. The left, neo-liberal democrats hold "values" which are devoid of personal responsibility, i.e. perpetual victimhood and identity politics. They will never get my vote.
"The whole point of this country is if you want to eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds and die of a heart attack at 43, you can! You are free to do so. To me, that’s beautiful." - Ron Swanson
I can't support him because the whole point of the Libertarian party is that they will not compromise on rights... but he's got a big "out" where an entire class of living human beings have no rights.
So either he's just as bad as Clinton and Trump as far as "say stuff to get elected," or he's got a big gap in his "rights" idea that could get extended if it was useful for him.
JMI: "Overall, I'm looking at who the candidates would put on the Supreme Court."
That, in itself, is a large part of, and a symptom of, the problem.
The Constitution does not give the supreme Court (capitalization intentional, as per the Constitution) the powers it exercises. In fact, by the Constitution, the supreme Court is a creature of, and subservient to, the Congress.
Jon Dager, that you are a seeming exception does not change the truth of the matter. Libertarianism -- and the more so that the self-identified libertarian associates with the Libertarian Party -- is not about personal responsibility, it is about license. And, just like any other leftist, when the bill comes due, most self-identified libertarians will be demanding that someone else pick up the tab.
Just look at the quote that *you* chose, thinking it would back up your claim that libertarianism is about "personal responsibility" -- ""The whole point of this country is if you want to eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds and die of a heart attack at 43, you can! You are free to do so. To me, that’s beautiful." - Ron Swanson"
1) that's not beautiful;
2) that's not "the whole point of this country";
3) that's not liberty, and that's not about "personal responsibility", that's license ... AND it is the implicit demand that society morally censure those who, like me, would look down their noises at those who engage in licentious acts.
Post a Comment