TheAgitator.com
Gary Johnson Friday
Friday, September 23rd, 2011I didn’t see last night’s debate, but I undestand Gary Johnson did very well, and getting quite a bit of press. Another good writeup here by Dave Weigel. Note Johnson’s position on capital punishment, and why he switched. I’m fairly certain that he’s the only candidate in the 2012 from either major party who is against the death penalty.
He’s also profiled in next month’s issue of GQ. And it’s a pretty flattering profile. And here he is on Fox News this morning.
Meanwhile, Bill Kristol accidentally compares Chris Christie to the antichrist.
MORE: Commenter points out that Ron Paul is also against the death penalty, and changed his mind for the same reasons.
Ron Paul is anti-capital punishment, according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Capital_punishment
@#1
We’re not supposed to mention Ron Paul. Gary Johnson has been selected as the ironically non-libertarian favorite of the libertarian movement this time ’round. Therefore, Johnson is the only candidate that doesn’t support capital punishment.
The linked Paul quotes appear to state that he’s agains the Federal govenment administering the death penalty and fine with the states doing so.
I could get behind a Ron Paul/Gary Johnson ticket (either one as VP). They’d be stymied at every step by their own party and the Dems, but what a show it would be. Their views on Israel would probably require overtime from Secret Service.
It was actually kind of funny; while I have read quite a bit about Gary Johnson, I had never actually seen a picture of the guy. So, last night, I switched over to the debate just in time to catch Johnson announce how he would make a 43% cut to defense spending. Not realizing he was going to be participating last night, my dad and I were like, “What?!? Who the HELL is this, and why does he sound so SANE?!?” It was hilarious. And, yes, he did quite well, in my opinion. But, then again, I suppose I’m a bit biased.
We all read a ton and rant a ton about these issues we care about that are completely marginalized by both partiies except when they pay lip service to them for political expedience. Gary Johnson is making them part of his platform and spending his own money doing it. If you believe in the ideas he’s vocalizing, our rhetoric counts for nothing if you don’t pony up some cash to support his campaign.
https://donate.garyjohnson2012.com/
Glad to finally be seeing more of him. First time I caught him was when he played Not My Job on Wait, Wait…Don’t Tell Me:
https://www.npr.org/2011/05/21/136501010/presidential-hopeful-gary-johnson-plays-not-my-job
Thought he sounded remarkably sane, and have been frustrated as the debates have only focused on the Usual Suspects.
@#2: Most of the Reason-style libertarians are generally silent or at times openly hostile to Paul. Apparently, electing someone who most closely matches their ostensive political views would be bad for the business of writing papers, giving speeches, and just generally complaining about how bad things are.
From what I’ve read, Ron Paul is opposed to the “federal death penalty.” Doesn’t this mean he’s fine with the states killing as many people as they feel like?
Gary Johnson, like Ron Paul, or Dennis Kucinich, would most likely be discovered, naked, late at night at the side of the highway with “acute leukemia” if elected, courtesy of your local Prison/Military-Industrial Complex and Drug War engineers.
But, hey, good luck to him…
I support Paul, but I prefer libertarianism to constitutionalism. As Rothbard noted, the constitution empowers government more than it limits it.
@3: I don’t doubt that Paul concedes that as President he would have little to say about the various states application of the death penalty. However, the reasons he gives for opposing the penalty suggest that he does not support it on a state level either – he has mentioned the fallibility of government and the fact that Texas has executed innocent men.
I deeply respect Ron Paul, and I also deeply wish he would get out of the way of Gary Johnson.
#9, Yeah, they could have spent just a little more time on the Commerce Clause.
I do wish the GQ article hadn’t given so much of the impression that Gary Johnson is cheap. I can see how it could be interpreted as not overly frugal, and responsible, but continuously going back to getting cheap alternatives seemed a little much.
Wouldn’t Chris Christie be the anti-Christie, and wouldn’t that be an oxymoron?
Radley,
Thanks for the run-down of GJ’s media coverage. It helps.
#6 Roho –
Thanks for posting that link. The only way I can get my liberal friends to open their minds sometimes is to give them an NPR link. (Of course, now I mention Radley’s posts on HuffPo.. after all, if its on HuffPo it must be liberal-approved, right?)
Ron Paul is a student of Rothbard, and according to Rothbard (in Ethics of Liberty), the death penalty is a justified response to murder. The problem lies in it’s administration. This is why Ron Paul is both anti-capital punishment and pro-capital punishment. Pro in theory, anti in practice. And the higher up the government ladder you go, the likelier it would be administrated illegitimately. There’s nothing wrong here, and if Gary Johnson is anti-capital punishment in theory as a libertarian qua libertarian, then he’s got a logic problem.
Ron Paul is a student of Rothbard, and according to Rothbard (in Ethics of Liberty), the death penalty is a justified response to murder. . . . if Gary Johnson is anti-capital punishment in theory as a libertarian qua libertarian, then he’s got a logic problem.
Why is Murray Rotbhard is the official arbiter of all that is and isn’t libertarian?
The next time someone offers up the modern version of the pro-capitalism argument (emotion-emotion-emotion), ask them about Blackstone’s Formulation…and if the idea of innocence until proven guilty by facts, proofs and evidence is still applicable and valid, today.
Today, many prosecutions appear to be based upon circumstnatial evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and conflicting witness testimony, with the presumption of guilt as the philosophical foundation of our present legal system.
That said, I think there’s a place for capital punishment in any society. The way it’s being used, now, however, is a bit like all of the SWAT teams breaking down doors in the middle of the night: They’re doing it just because they can, not because it’s the right thing to do.
“Why is Murray Rotbhard is the official arbiter of all that is and isn’t libertarian?”
It goes from God to Murray to you. Yeah that doesn’t quite work. Oh well. Any excuse to reference real genius.
Radley, what is your problem with Ron Paul? This is not the first time you have disregarded him and completely misrepresented his views. Are you doing this deliberately, or did you really not take the time to research the most successful and influential libertarian intellectual/personality/politician in the last 100 years?
I’ve been coming to this site for a few months now to get the news, but I rarely spend any time in the comments section. This is precisely why. I love the anti police-state theme of the your news aggregation, but your attitude towards Ron Paul makes it hard for me to come to this site.
Mark:
Like #8 said, there are certain libertarians who are more interested in b*tching and moaning for the rest of their lives rather than affecting change. Did you know Paul is polling in the top three in New Hampshire? You’d never know it from the media; sadly, you’d never know it from reading sites like this, either.
Honestly, you Ron Paul people need to chill out. The conspiracy theories, the constantly taking offense any time someone dares to write something nice about Johnson without first genuflecting before Paul — it’s all kind of cultish.
Yes, in my initial post on Johnson, I didn’t realize as I wrote it that Paul is also mostly anti-death penalty. I amended the post five minutes after it went up. But Paul’s position on the death penalty is that he opposes it at the federal level. Johnson opposes it outright. So Johnson’s views are more in line with my own. I’m also not sure why you think I have “disregarded” Paul. I’ve written about him plenty. I touted his presidential campaign in 2008 when I had a Fox News column. I included him in a column list of most liberty-friendly politicians. I’ve written about him on this site on numerous occasions. Yes, I criticized his reaction to the newsletter controversy. And I still think he handled it poorly. But I think Ron Paul has done enormous things for the cause of liberty, including attracting scores of young people into the movement. I’ve met Paul several times. I like him. I know and like several members of his staff. I hope he does well in the primaries. That said, I hope Johnson does better. Because Johnson’s views are more in line with my own.
I think it’s great that there were two libertarian candidates in the debate last night. I hope they both do well, both in moving the debate and in winning actual delegates.
You’d never know it from the media; sadly, you’d never know it from reading sites like this, either.
Really?
And here’s an archive of Ron Paul posts.
I’ll bet if Rothbard were alive today he’d probably change his mind on the death penalty like Ron and Gary did.
I understand the importance of giving Johnson credit without having to acknowledge Ron Paul. If it was that simple I wouldn’t have thought twice about it and I wouldn’t have given my two cents.
I have been coming to this site literally daily for about 5 or 6 months. I quietly learned from you and appreciated your work. However, I have definitely noticed a pattern of you actively ignoring Paul. In fact, I have noticed it from Reason in general. I am, frankly, extremely confused by this. You say you like Johnson better. That’s great. I like Gary, too, and have donated to his campaign. But this is not about this one article. This is an ongoing thing. There is a very obvious faction between the Ron Paul libertarians and the Reason libertarians. This division baffles me.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, and I am not a “Ron Paul cultist.” I am a free-thinking individual who cherishes liberty and the truth. But something is up.
>Why is Murray Rotbhard is the official arbiter of all that is and isn’t libertarian?
Because his scholarship on liberty makes nearly everyone else’s pale in comparison.
-jcr
I have been reading this site since I followed a foxnews column here at least 9 years ago. I am glad I found Radley’s column shortly before I stopped reading/watching Fox news completely. I was a print subscriber to reason many years before that. I think Radley was at Cato when I started reading this blog. I was very aware of Ron Paul around 2000 or earlier, as I was a new libertarian and very interested in reading everything I could about libertarians in government and libertarian “celebrities.” I also remember reading scanned copies of the “newsletters” online back then. Long before the whole 2007/2008 “scandal.” All that stuff was easy to find with Google/Excite/Webcrawler/Altavista or whatever. And honestly, that did turn me off. Ron Paul has been the most-libertarian higher profile politican for a long time, but I have always been somewhat of a reluctant supporter because the association with the Reconstructionists and Neo-Confederates bothers me. I see Paul as a good “limited government” guy and a conservative Constitutionalist with a libertarian streak, but those aren’t really my views. I don’t believe States have “rights.” Most of his supporters I encounter at RP related sites and forums are much more conservative than libertarian, and I just don’t mean in their personal lives. I refer to people who want to use government force against certain types of people they don’t like.
Also, after reading Balko’s work for so long, especially on police brutality, I have a really hard time with people who are worshipped as some great libertarian anti-state thinkers yet have openly advocated for “street justice” in the form of police brutality and received a lot of money for pandering to the fears of racists and assorted nutjobs. I am not writing about Paul here as much as I am those other couple of guys. One has been mentioned in the comments.
That said, Paul HAS received a LOT of coverage from Reason, Radley, and all the “beltway” libertarians, including former employees of beltway libertarian think tanks who aren’t even libertarian. If it seems like he doesn’t get as much press these days, maybe it’s because he’s already received so much press from libertarian outlets and most libertarian readers have already gone over everything, good and bad. Johnson might just make for a better story at this point.
For the record, as a libertarian, I also have issues with Gary Johnson. Though I don’t know how much disagreement is philosophy versus political pragmatism. For example, I am really opposed to the whole “cost-benefit” thing. That’s not libertarian at all, though the outcomes tend to be good. But I don’t know if that’s just part of the political strategy to appeal to pragmatic “business” types. But I’m more comfortable with that than political pandering to ignorant social conservatives.
As far as this site ( and most libertarian sites, for that matter), I don’t read it for politics. I’d rather read about the type of stuff Balko is known for and does well, especially over the last 5-6 years. The government abuses, police militarization, wrong door/excessive SWAT, and so on. This is the stuff that matters to me, and I find it difficult to care much about people who were writing prominent Editorials supporting police brutality and running 7 figure newsletter businesses pandering to racists and big-government anti-liberty nutjobs.
As a libertarian who cheered like hell for Paul in 2008, and who would still love him to win the primary (he and Johnson are the only reasons to watch the debate unless I’m feeling really masochistic), some of his cult followers are parodies of themselves. The world does not revolve around Ron Paul, and Radley’s arguable mistake over who opposes the death penalty (and I say arguable because it looks like there’s still some question on that) was not some premeditated snubbing of Paul. Give it a rest.
Some of these comments are as bad as that Balloon Juice website. “YOU DIDN’T MENTION _____ SO YOU MUST BE AGAINST/FOR IT!”
@ #6 
“Gary Johnson is making them part of his platform and spending his own money doing it. If you believe in the ideas he’s vocalizing, our rhetoric counts for nothing if you don’t pony up some cash to support his campaign.”
“I deeply respect Ron Paul, and I also deeply wish he would get out of the way of Gary Johnson.”
Problem with that is:
Ron Paul had those ideas and principles, first, and they have been a consistent part of his life, and his terms in the House, those ideas and principles are the core of his campaign;
he has legions of supporters and they come from a wide selection of political philosophies;
and he wins all the online and straw polls while Gary Johnson, doesn’t have the supporters and doesn’t win the polls (and didn’t get in the first three “debates”).
Ron Paul actually has a chance this year, Gary Johnson, not so much (except, perhaps, as RP’s VP). I see and hear Obama voters writing and saying they’ll cross party lines to get Ron Paul nominated and elected. I’ve not seen or heard anyone saying that about Gary Johnson.
#29, well, to be fair to Rothbard, Lew Rockwell’s come a long way on police brutality and race issues and sympathy for right wing authoritarians in general, so Rothbard may well have done the same, were he not dead. Then again, the fact that he was willing to contort libertarian principles (and “contort” is putting it nicely) to pander to social conservatives, police statists, etc. out of nothing more than disillusionment with the New Left speaks poorly for him and any hypothetical changes in opinion he might have.
Johnson wants to make every employer an unpaid tax collector and snitch for what arguably qualifies as the most immoral tax system in history, and that’s a crowded field.
The consumption tax is nothing more or less than government permission to live. The government says “You can’t spend your own money, you can’t even buy food, without paying us 30% first. If you don’t have it, tough. Starve.”
Johnson wants employers to collect this moral monstrosity from each of their customers, keep detailed records of what they buy, manage the bookkeeping, deposit the loot, feed the database, make the payments to the government. No pay for employers; the government claims it has first right to all that they have, and that includes as much of their time and labor as the government cares to steal.
Johnson wants to erect an apparatus that will document and control every single sale of goods or services in the US economy. Besides the absurd burden (and the inevitable meteoric rise in the free aka “black” market) the potential for mischief and evil is boundless.
Do you really want government databases and bureaucrats to know when your household begins buying adult diapers? That’s one of the least embarrassing things they will know under Johnson’s plan for tyranny.
Ron Paul is principled, consistent, and a champion of liberty. He has moved the terms of the real debate with 30+ years of tireless effort, at great personal sacrifice. Gary Johnson can not make any of those claims. He is ignorant of economics, unprincipled, and naive. If disaster befalls us and he is elected and gets his tax, you can be quite certain we’ll end up with both an income tax AND a national sales tax.
Unlike Paul, Johnson has no national campaign organization. He has 2 people in NH. Paul has 4 paid, a state representative as chair, and dozens of volunteers. Ron Paul has an email list from his 2008 donors, a PAC and super-PAC, and a proven track record at raising large sums of money.
Johnson has his narcissism feeding his belief that he can win. No organization, no money, no chance. It is quite possible that he will accept the Libertarian Party’s nomination, which gives him even less chance of winning than Ron Paul.
I have heard a lot of moral arguments against the income tax… but this is the first time I’ve heard a pseudo-logical moral rant against a consumption tax (which is, in theory, more uniform, fair, and taxes use instead of earning/living). I am baffled at the bullshit people come up with.
“Johnson has his narcissism feeding his belief that he can win. No organization, no money, no chance.”
The same could have been said of Paul in 2008, but I am glad he ran. His efforts in 2008 are responsible for his recognition this time around. I think both Paul and Johnson would be great (and entertaining) candidates, so this apparent anger, especially towards Johnson, is just mind-boggling. It’s like No True Scotsman on steroids; how dare someone else attempt to be THE libertarian candidate!
These posts are just proof that libertarians are not immune from the politics-as-a-sports-game problem. GO TEAM!
Actually, Radley ignores your favorite libertarian-leaning major party candidate for exactly the same reason the refs are always biased against your team, especially in games where they’re losing.
gary, ron, and ron’s son
all wanted the support of ron swanson.
but the battle of thoughts
became a battle of twots
arguing about who had the bigger johnson.
@#24
“But Paul’s position on the death penalty is that he opposes it at the federal level. Johnson opposes it outright. So Johnson’s views are more in line with my own.”
So since Johnson opposes the death penalty outright, does that mean he would like to use the power of the presidency to abolish it entirely? Because when one is running for President, it makes sense that they speak mostly of the things they would do as President. Paul’s comments have led me to believe that he opposes the death penalty outright, but would only have the power as President to stop it at the national government level. The 10th amendment limits his ability to infringe on the power of the states to institute a death penalty.
Does Johnson plan to float a constitutional amendment to eliminate the death penalty?