Oh. Wow. Is this delusion or confusion?
That rather delicious comment was posted as a comment to my latest video, 7 Reasons To Vote For Gary Johnson:
Even though I addressed this guy’s comment literally in the video that he commented, I’m going to do it again, because I enjoy banging my head on brick walls that I know will break my skull before I penetrate the barricade. So, without further adieu, what the fuck is this guy talking about?
Gary only polling at 10% because Gary Isn’t a True libertarian is also speculation same as McAfee polling at 40% because he is a true Libertarian.
Yes, I pointed that out in the video. That was seriously the entire point that I was driving at. I explicitly said in the video that it’s just baseless speculation to say that McAfee would be polling at 40% by now. This is not the first time I’ve had to tell someone in the past few days that I’m a few steps ahead of them, but yes, dude, I’m a few steps ahead of you here. I said that. I explicitly said that. You’ll find it in Reason #5. Your attempt to undermine my statement is null, because I already undermined my own statement.
McAfee would have been put away by the media as a crazy nut job even worse then Ron Paul was you must know that right?
What an interesting thing to say in an election cycle that gave us Donald Trump, who has spent the better part of the past year being crucified by the media and social media. Hardly a day goes by that we don’t see stories from the media about how crazy Trump is, and it’s been going on for a long time now. Trump has been compared to Hitler ad nauseum, has been derided as juvenile, has been mocked as infantile, has been criticized as naive, has been insulted as a megalomaniac, and this has been going on for a year. Donald Trump has faced criticisms far worse than anything that McAfee would face.
Yet Donald Trump is polling around 40%–four times higher than Gary Johnson. You assert that the media would write him off as a crazy nut job if McAfee had won the nomination. So? Donald Trump has proven, beyond any doubt, that if you propose ideas that people like, then the media cannot derail you. And while it’s true that the media mocked Ron Paul, it was not the mockery that hurt him. As I and others have explained, it was that the media ignored Ron Paul that hurt him. In so many ways, neglect is worse than contempt, and Donald Trump’s success has roundly proven that to us.
So this statement may be true, but is completely irrelevant.
I think you are wrong about the Libertarian party being the Next Republican party.
Well, I think I’m right.
As I explained in the video, without libertarian principles, there is nothing that distinguishes the Libertarian Party from being a Republican Party that actually walks the walk that it talks. The GOP has long been criticized for wanting small government unless the government being big will help their causes, at which point the principle of small government is discarded. I’ve written about this myself. If the Republican Party actually adhered to the ideas that it has been proposing, rather than partially adhering to those ideas, and then ignoring them in their desire to push their morality onto others, then the Republican Party wouldn’t be in this mess.
Now we have a Libertarian Presidential Candidate who demonstrably wants to push his morality onto others, but who otherwise wants small government when he is indifferent toward something. The only difference here is that the majority of Americans are okay with discrimination being illegal. I would remind you, however, that might is not right, and that it doesn’t matter of 99.99999999% of humans are okay with criminalizing discrimination; it would not make it morally right to do so. Morality is subjective, and libertarianism demands only that people abide one basic moral maxim universally:
It is morally wrong to initiate force, violence, and coercion.
That is the only moral maxim that libertarians are required to abide. Everything else is up for grabs, and you will find libertarians who disagree greatly on what is morally good, what is morally bad, and what is morally neutral. We have Johnson’s preference for outlawing something that is subjectively determined to be morally bad (discrimination), but outlawing something that is subjectively morally bad is a violation of the universal moral maxim, because the only way to outlaw something is to use force, violence, and/or coercion to put a stop to it.
I would redirect you to my remarks about groups and individuals, particularly to my podcast on businesses, because you must remember that there is no such thing as discrimination.
What we are actually talking about here is an individual choosing with whom they associate and with whom they do not associate. They may choose not to associate with another individual, or they may decide that they don’t want to associate with people who have x characteristic. It is not our business what criteria someone uses to determine who they want to associate with. Someone may not want to associate with red-heads, with transgender people, with homosexuals, with Muslims, with black men, with fat people–it’s not our business, and it is not our place to tell other people who they should associate with, or what criteria they should use in determining who they associate with.
I say this quite a lot, but that I have to explain this simple thing to a self-professed libertarian is truly… truly horrifying.
If a woman was repeatedly abused by bearded men as a child and teenager, and goes on to own a business where she decides that she doesn’t want to do business with bearded men, this would, in your worldview, be an act of discrimination against bearded men. You would tell her that she is not allowed to do that, that she is not allowed to choose who she associates with and who she shuns. You would tell her that she must associate with bearded men, whether she likes it or not, and you will put a gun to her head and force her to do what you want her to do.
I am stunned that you don’t see this travesty as a problem.
If, however, you do see a moral outrage in the previous paragraph, I would urge you to replace “bearded men” with any other group or category of people, and replace the reason with literally any other. The type of discrimination should be irrelevant to your worldview, as should the reason. Regardless of why someone wants to discriminate, and regardless of who they want to discriminate against, you must hold that it is wrong of them to do it, and that they must be forced to not do it.
Otherwise you are being sexual orientationist, racist, misogynistic, misandristic, or sexist. How?
If you would allow bearded men to be discriminated against, but not LGBT people, then you are placing LGBT on a higher pedestal than bearded men; you are treating them differently based on their sexual orientation. To treat someone differently based on their sexual orientation is, of course, sexual orientationist. It follows that if you are against LGBT discrimination, you must be against discrimination against bearded men.
know Gary Johnson isn’t a 100% true Libertarian but we are all hoping a moderate candidate can make way for a True Libertarian running in the Future.
Holy fuckballs, I’m tired of hearing this one.
I’ve addressed it… so many times… including in my most recent video about Gary Johnson:
There is a clear failure to think in this argument. As I’ve explained repeatedly, the people who are impressed by Gary Johnson and “becoming libertarians” because of him are not learning about libertarianism. They interpret “libertarianism” to be the warped mess of “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” bullshit that Johnson is peddling. Four years from now, these same people will be on the Internet, at the LNC, on the news, etc., talking about what a great libertarian Gary Johnson is.
If people were coming into the Libertarian Party and being universally encouraged to learn about its principles, to be exposed to people like myself, to Thomas Knapp, to John McAfee, to Daryl Perry, etc., then it wouldn’t be a problem. Johnson, however, is the one informing them of what a libertarian is, and he is not telling them what libertarianism is. They are learning what libertarianism is from the Libertarian Presidential Candidate.
It seems obvious, right?
Assume that you know nothing about the Libertarian Party, and then suddenly you see Gary Johnson talking his “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” stuff, and you think, “Wow! That’s perfect!” Just like that, you’ve come to believe that a libertarian is someone who is “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.” Imagine that you then go on to join the Libertarian Party, and four years later you are presented with five or six choices of who to nominate for the party, so you apply what you know of libertarianism, and you choose a candidate who is “fiscally conservative, socially liberal,” probably Gary Johnson himself (Good god, do I hope not, but I’m starting to wonder if we’ll have another Johnson candidacy in 2020, and that would cause me to give up hope on the party), or someone like Rand Paul.
In a very real way, Gary Johnson is the face of the Libertarian Party. To the masses, Gary Johnson’s policies are the policy of the Libertarian Party. Their education on what libertarianism is begins and ends with Gary Johnson. The more popular Gary Johnson becomes, the further away we get from ever being able to nominate a “true libertarian.” This… is… obvious. Because the same people we’re talking about will still be here four years from now, eight years from now, twelve years from now… and they’ll still be outnumbering us and refusing to listen because we’re chastised, mocked, derided, insulted, and considered heretics for pointing out that this “moderate” shit is un-libertarian.
I don’t want to argue with you, Ronald, because you know that I’m correct. Your contention is that it’s necessary to choose pragmatism over principle. I dispute that, but don’t make the mistake of thinking I don’t understand it. I fully understand it. I fully understand why you and others have done it. My gripe is not necessarily with you.
My gripe is with the people who don’t know that I’m correct. My argument is with the people who say that Johnson is a libertarian. My contention is directed at the people who think I’m a lunatic for saying Johnson isn’t a true libertarian. My issue is with people who say that I’m wrong about libertarianism. My ire is directed at people who say I don’t know what I’m talking about when it comes to liberty. My arguments are directed primarily at the people who say that I don’t understand libertarianism, who came into the party as former Republicans and believed Johnson’s spiel is libertarianism.
You and I both know that Johnson is not a libertarian. You assert that we must use him as a stepping stone to having an actual libertarian. I dispute that, too, don’t get me wrong. I certainly argue against that idea. But my ire is not directed at you. You and I have a difference of opinion. I and those people who think libertarianism is “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” have a difference of fact. And, most dangerously, they adamantly refuse to listen, and they will not entertain the possibility that they are wrong, because, as I’ve said, they think they know: they think they can “feel” their way to libertarianism, they think that it’s common sense, and they think that they know what they’re talking about.
It is, once more, the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Gary will just warm the American people to that idea.
But… he won’t. He isn’t, he hasn’t, and he won’t. This is… demonstrably false, man. This is completely untrue. The stuff that Gary Johnson is warming people to is not libertarianism, as you yourself know and admit. We “true libertarians” (a phrase that I don’t care for, to be honest, because one either is a libertarian or one is not) will continue to be outliers, looneys, and heretics. Our own party is currently calling us crazy lunatics, treating us like heretics. I’ve seen “libertarians” say that people like me should be thrown in the Gulag! While the person was obviously being hyperbolic, the fact remains that “people who disagree with me should be thrown in prison” should never come out of a libertarian’s mouth, even as a joke, and we all know that there was some underlying grain of truth to his “joke.” The statement “it was just a joke” does not mean there is no nugget of sincere belief behind it. After all, my grandfather makes lots of racist jokes, and he could say “They’re just jokes,” too.
Imagine how the rest of America is going to treat us “true libertarians” if our own party is calling us crazy lunatics.
On top of that, read my previous points and watch my videos. Johnson is not warming people up to libertarianism, because libertarianism is not what he is exposing people to.