Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Beware the “Libertarians”
If there was ever a year for a frustrated conservatarian to consider voting for the Libertarian Party ticket, 2016 would seem to be a godsend: Trump and Clinton are … well, no need to rehash this … and the Libertarians have nominated not one but two former Republican governors. But as Ilya Shapiro writes on Cato at Liberty, the theory of the Johnson-Weld ticket and its reality diverge greatly, and not in a way that pays any compliments to the latter:
[In this recent] ReasonTV interview … Weld praises Justice Stephen Breyer and Judge Merrick Garland, who are the jurists most deferential to the government on everything, whether environmental regulation or civil liberties. Later in the same interview, he similarly compliments Republican senators like Mark Kirk and Susan Collins, who are among the least libertarian of the GOP caucus in terms of the size and scope of government and its imposition on the private sector and civil society.
What’s painful about this is that it’s not as if there weren’t other alternatives available to them. There’s no shortage of libertarian-friendly judges whom they might have cited, including Justice Clarence Thomas. And why on earth would this list include Collins and Kirk but not Reps. Justin Amash and Thomas Massie, or Senator Rand Paul?
It actually gets worse from there. As has been noted elsewhere, Johnson not only opposes RFRA legislation — which, I should note, I do as well — but also the conscience claims that such legislation intends to protect:
[In a Washington Examiner interview, Johnson] calls religious freedom “a black hole” and endorses a federal role in preventing “discrimination” in all its guises. More specifically, he’s okay with fining a wedding photographer for not working a gay wedding – a case from New Mexico where Cato and every libertarian I know supported the photographer – and forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for contraceptives (where again Cato and libertarians supported religious liberty).
It takes a lot of effort to be this wrong and — as Shapiro says — it puts Johnson almost uniquely off-the-reservation; the only comparable statement I can think of is Trump’s endorsement of Kelo.
When @salvatorepadula and I did our podcast last year, we lamented the way “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” has become the standard shorthand description of libertarianism — a lament Shapiro apparently shares — as if drug legalization, same-sex marriage, and balanced budgets were the key takeaways from reading Hayek, von Mises, and Friedman.
If Johnson and Weld want to earn votes from disaffected conservatives of a classically-liberal bent, they could hardly be doing a worse job of it. At least, so far, we’ve been spared further stripteases.
Published in General
Your neighbor must be a Libertarian.
I think my neighbor has his college aged grand kids living there so they’re probably socialists. Most of my neighbors have Bernie signs up. I hate California sometimes.
The particular way the question was asked was so terrible that I’m extremely loathe to hold anyone accountable for their answer. That said, the other candidates, including John McAffee (who’s nuts) were able to muster significantly better answers.
[will see if I can find video]
Yes, but given that Johnson/Weld have no chance whatsoever to win, why give them the benefit of my protest vote?
Exactly. Throw in the Everest climb and I am in.
Although you are probably right, a lot can happen in three months. Say some mainstream GOP elected officials fear a complete debacle and officially desert Trump, the alternative may get momentum, enough to throw it in the House of Representatives.
Here’s the question I always ask but never get an answer to when this scenario is proposed:
Why would throwing it to the House result in anything other than a Trump presidency, given that the incentives facing representatives are to vote the party line?
Well that is its own Thread. When I say community rights though, I don’t me the Federal Gov’ment. That is what Johnson is calling for, I think we can all agree that is a bridge too far.
He has yet to clarify, that I know of. I am more than happy to accept a clarification.
But, no matter how the question is asked, in 2016, with all we know about WWII, and including the fact the Japanese attacked us first, the answer is always, “Yes”.
I don’t know. If Trump can’t get enough electoral college votes, the whole edifice may collapse quickly and lead to a Johnson vote. I agree it’s a big stretch, though.
Most people don’t know that this statement occurred nor do I think its much on Johnson’s mind that people are looking for a clarification. Why don’t you write his campaign and see if they answer you? That would put a lot of our minds to rest on this issue.
Just to be clear, the question encompassed both world wars, which is just a painfully awful way to ask a question. Unfortunately, Johnson’s answer was also painfully awful.
https://youtu.be/EOGple27Jo0?t=1h15m9s
Johnson’s answer was vastly worse than Petersen’s or MacAffee’s.
Yeah I know.
But, I would blast and slam a Democrat for that answer, so I am just being consistent.
The question was horrible. The fact it was asked, and the cheers involved, however, say something pretty scary about Libertarians. (big L)
Totally understood.
I think I’d have preferred the thong dance.
Ha
I suppose it makes sense in an election where the Democrat and Republican nominees confirm every terrible stereotype about their party, the Libertarians fulfill the suspicion that they really only care about legalizing pot.
I wouldn’t call standing up for liberty an easy hurdle. Almost every politicians fails.
Johnson’s answers on religious liberty are abysmal. I get what he was trying to say, he just said it poorly.
It’s interesting how Libertarians are held to such a higher standard than Republicans or Democrats.
Not me, that was almost as bad as the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was unprovoked, but I’m glad I was bombed when I saw the video.
Johnson is an experienced two-term governor. Is he a perfect libertarian? No. But a perfect libertarian isn’t going to get elected President. Not in a country that twice elected both Barack Obama and George W. Bush.
What the LP went for this year was a ticket that could possibly be elected. It’s not some activists that you’ve never heard of. It’s a pair of successful governors.
Look, I like a lot of what Austin Petersen says. I’d vote for him for Congress in a heartbeat. Ditto for Senate. But President isn’t an entry level job, and Petersen just doesn’t have the qualifications.
Johnson ain’t perfect, but he’s run a government before. And he and Bill Weld are miles ahead of the alternatives. I’ll vote for them in a heartbeat over the alternatives.
I disagree with this, Tom. Trump’s and Clinton’s negatives are so high as to be fatal if they weren’t running against each other. The public is screaming for an alternative.
Johnson’s problem is that nobody knows who he is. He is slowly eking up to 15%. If he gets into the debates, then its a whole new ball game.
Is it a long shot? Yes. But to say that they have no chance is unfair.
It’s kinda important if they run on the Libertarian ticket.
Because we’ve come to think of third party tickets as ideals, not viable political parties. It’s one thing to vote for somebody you know will lose. It’s another when you don’t even really agree with him. It’s like blowing your diet cheat day on moon pies.
I haven’t done a deep investigation of Johnson, but everything I see he’s a lightweight. I say this especially after watching that hideous commercial where he and Weld sound like pimply-faced college students apologizing for being seen at College Republican meeting. (“But we’re not like them — we want to end the wars!”)
That being said, my calculation is as follows:
On November 9th, the Republican Party, or what’s left of it after Trump walks away from the burning wreckage and declares himself a “winner” after a crushing defeat, will be looking for direction. A strong Libertarian result will hopefully show that, despite the growth of populism, the Tea Party philosophy is still alive in a portion of the electorate.
Should the Libertarians gain strength and interpret the result as a victory for the pile of Vox clippings that they call a platform, we can have that fight later.
What DO you mean by “community rights?” That sounds like an oxymoron to me.
I’d go on record saying we shouldn’t have entered WWI. Frankly, I’m not sure why anyone was in WWI. More destruction per unit of pointlessness than any war in history.
Yes, because unlike the Republicans and Democrats, the Libertarians do not claim to be a broad-based coalition which requires every constituency to give up some of what they want to advance a larger, shared agenda. They claim to be the party for people interested in liberty.
Exactly. If the libertarians don’t care about basic liberties then what the hell is the point of the Libertarian Party?
Entirely agreed, but this isn’t about falling short of an ideal, but in not taking bone-headedly stupid stances. Again, how someone can call themselves a libertarian while thinking that the law should require folks to violate their consciences in novel ways is utterly beyond me. This isn’t a close matter; it’s an easy one.
And on the WWII thing, several of the other candidates were able to deal with the (dumb) question way better than Johnson. Petersen and McAffee both offered quick answers that differentiated between the wars.
Like I said, I get what Johnson was getting at, he just said it poorly.
That being said, libertarianism isn’t a one thing that believes only a specific thing with no deviation. Otherwise there would be no arguments among libertarians. (Which, obviously ain’t the situation.)
And to defend Johnson for a moment, the LP has always strongly supported gay rights, even 40 years ago, when it was wildly unpopular.
I think Johnson is all twisted up on his interpretation of public accommodation law. (It’s obvious that he’s not a lawyer, which is, generally speaking, a mark in his favor.)
At the same time, he’s got his eye on bigger things, specifically how religious liberty execptions could be used to discriminate not just against gay people, but against religious minorities.
But he’s made quite a hash out of the issue in his attempts to explain himself.
And as you know, I don’t like playing the exceptions game: Freedom to associate means people get to be jerks. Johnson’s remedy — keep the public accommodations laws and increase anti-discrimination laws — is textbook statism. I don’t like RFRA, but I’ll take it over this nonsense.
Community rights stem from the collective right of individuals to live with like minded individuals and form communities to their liking. Such as having a community with no strip clubs in it. I think this, at the most, can extend to the level of a County. For instance, I find dry counties perfectly reasonable, as there are plenty of wet counties out there.