One percent of Americans voted for Gary Johnson for President on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2012. Die-hards for freedom are about one percent of voting Americans.
After Obama's second victory, Left-liberals were quick to conclude that people who want more freedom are politically irrelevant. Granted, a liberal might construe social libertarian stances such as legalization of some drugs, immigration "reform", and even gay "marriage" as "acceptable" stances for freedom, with all others being completely irrelevant to the "progress"ive consensus.
It should be mentioned that Gary Johnson supporters were not the same as Romney supporters. They weren't going to put up with any candidate who supported the brown-shirtesque TSA, ominous legislation like NDAA2012, a growing welfare and warfare state, a falling dollar, etc. Both Obama and Romney never once claimed to stop any of these things, with Romney only seeming to promise to slow down government growth (except for in "defense" spending).
So, the other one percent, the Gary Johnson supporters, are they politically irrelevant? For the time being...yes. Johnson failed to accumulate the difference of votes between Romney and Obama in any state, not even being able to enjoy the status of spoiler that would be awarded by sarcastic reporters.
However, Gary Johnson/Ron Paul supporters can become politically relevant, but they must increase their numbers dramatically.
Several ways to do so are:
1. Talk to friends and educate them about liberty. Don't just vie for their votes given their existing, non liberty-oriented ideas. Maybe branch out to them on some liberty issue they support and then give them the full dose.
2. Organize outreach programs. Educational programs such as Foundation for Economic Education should take precedence. Hand out flyers in public places concerning liberty issues or ideas.
Political campaigns need to take a back seat for a while. There is no sense in running in elections to get votes from socialists and military worshipers, when neither have an appetite for freedom. Only in places where victory is possible, such as in Thomas Massie's congressional seat, should liberty candidates be given a lot of attention. This is not to say that third party candidates such as Gary Johnson who are severe underdogs should not run. They should run, but their campaigns should be un-apologetically pro-liberty. Nor should they consume all the time of liberty individuals or distract from winning people over to liberty philosophy.
People need to stop thinking campaign to campaign, and start thinking in the long term. If Gary Johnson die-hards could become at least 15% of the voting population, they could be able to sway enough fickle and lenient people to vote in many more liberty Republicans than the three congressmen and two senators* to be in the Federal government as of 2013.
3. Give up truly irrelevant things to make more time for liberty. Sports especially need to take a back seat, unless you're actually profiting from it like Peyton Hillis. When we have more freedom we can again indulge in such things.
4. Finally, giving up is exactly what the "progress"ives and poser neo-cons want Gary Johnson/Ron Paul supporters to do. Winning the hearts and minds may be difficult and perhaps even impossible given the loyalty institutions of socialism tend to ensconce from people who have lived with them. But perhaps, the reason we're here in the first place is that liberty people haven't been vocal enough to counteract the temptations of socialism (if doing were possible).
5. This talk of secession is nonsense. Not that secession is bad per se, but we simply don't have enough influence in any state government to commence with seceding anywhere. We might as well theorize about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. When we reach heaven (Lord willing), we'll find out, and when there is a heavenly atmosphere of liberty in a given state, we'll discuss secession.
___________________________________
*They are Amash, Massie, and Bentovolio. Walter Jones and Dennis Kucinich are helpful as well. The Senators are Rand Paul and Mike Lee.
Showing posts with label Gary Johnson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gary Johnson. Show all posts
Friday, November 23, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
2012 Pennsylvania Election Endorsements
Federal Candidates
President: Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
US Senate: Rayburn Douglas Smith (Libertarian)
CD 10: Phil Scollo (D)
CD 11: Lou Barletta (R)
CD 17: Laureen Cummings (R)
State Candidates
Attorney General: Marakay Rogers (Libertarian)
Auditor General: Betsy Summers (Libertarian)
State Treasurer: Patricia M. Fryman (Libertarian)
PA 120 Aaron Kaufer (R)
PA 119 Rick Arnold (R)
PA 12 Daryl Metcalfe (R)
US Congressional Candidate Endorsements Outside Pennsylvania
Kesha Rogers (D) TX -22
Kurt Haskell (D) MI -7
Justin Amash (R) MI -3
Kerry Bentivolio (R) MI -11
Art Robinson (R) OR -4
Thomas Massie (R) KY -4
Randy Weber (R) TX -14
Explanations
Gary Johnson, President -Why not choose the lesser of two evils in Romney? We believe Romney will be very similar to George W. Bush or fusion of Bush and Obama. We expect from him: unnecessary wars with Iran and Syria, retention of a significant amount of Obamacare, and increased overall spending largely due to increases in "defense" spending. Romney will expand TSA molestations, drones spying on Americans, NDAA 2012, and many other anti-freedom trends. Such incremental increases in tyranny and fiscal irresponsibility are the very things people are mad at Obama for. Romney has already shown a liking for strong arm tactics in his maneuvers to prevent Ron Paul from being considered for a vote at the GOP convention, and God knows what he'll be like once elected. Finally, for every neo-con warmonger such GW Bush, there follows a left-wing despot like Obama. Although Romney may be slightly better for the business climate today, in the long run he represents a temporary slowing down and not a reversal of detrimental policies.
Every four years, sages clamber for the American people to stop compromising and vote against a candidate who represents the establishment coterie of a political party which has had 150 years to be corrupted. And every year the mindless masses, due to a prisoner's dilemma mentality and fear, vote to keep out the major party candidate they dislike most. A lot of this is due to brainwashing in the media that accentuates differences between Republicans like Romney and Democrats like Obama, when functionally they are nearly identical. Obama maintained Bush's increases in spending, and George W Bush increased the benchmark of annual federal spending by more in his last four years than Obama has in his first four years.
Those voting for Gary Johnson know that they are voting for an honest man. Johnson is actually more qualified to run for president than Romney, having served two terms as governor instead of one, and having been named one of the most popular governors during his tenure unlike Romney.
Prior to becoming governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson started a business from the ground up which would eventually employ over one thousand people, and unlike Romney, he never received a bailout.
Johnson aims to solve all the problems of the day. He favors sustainable, sane levels of defense spending, and has a track record as governor of reducing spending and balancing the budget. Johnson knows how to say no, and has the backbone to veto all forms of excessive spending. His libertarian philosophy is conducive to a small government that permits maximum freedom for all. Thus, Gary Johnson is actually different from Obama in his preferred policies. Until the GOP and their talk-radio brainwashers allow the people a candidate such as Gary Johnson, they will not receive votes from anyone who is honest and fully informed, who also cares about fiscal well-being and personal freedom.
Libertarian Party candidate Rayburn Smith understands liberty and is a fiscal conservative. He will vote to curtail waste in the "defense" budget, and will oppose the burgeoning police state mentality and draconian measures such as NDAA2012.
Rayburn Smith's Republican opponent, Tom Smith (no relation), is an idiot who does not think for himself and believes the consensus among the Republican establishment is the only standard of truth. Case in point, Tom Smith deferred to Pat Toomey and Allen West on the indefinite detention clause in the NDAA 2012, without ever developing an opinion of his own on the subject. His only opinion seems to be conformity with the establishment. Tom Smith also stated that we must have a "balance" between liberty and security. Politicians only say that when they want to take away liberty, never when they want to allow more of it. It is clear that Tom Smith will not stand up for your freedom as long as he can use that ridiculous rationale for backing down. On the other hand, Rayburn Smith makes liberty a priority will protect us from tyrannical legislation.
The video below displays Tom the moron Smith's answer to a question on NDAA.
President: Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
US Senate: Rayburn Douglas Smith (Libertarian)
CD 10: Phil Scollo (D)
CD 11: Lou Barletta (R)
CD 17: Laureen Cummings (R)
State Candidates
Attorney General: Marakay Rogers (Libertarian)
Auditor General: Betsy Summers (Libertarian)
State Treasurer: Patricia M. Fryman (Libertarian)
PA 120 Aaron Kaufer (R)
PA 119 Rick Arnold (R)
PA 12 Daryl Metcalfe (R)
US Congressional Candidate Endorsements Outside Pennsylvania
Kesha Rogers (D) TX -22
Kurt Haskell (D) MI -7
Justin Amash (R) MI -3
Kerry Bentivolio (R) MI -11
Art Robinson (R) OR -4
Thomas Massie (R) KY -4
Randy Weber (R) TX -14
Explanations
Gary Johnson, President -Why not choose the lesser of two evils in Romney? We believe Romney will be very similar to George W. Bush or fusion of Bush and Obama. We expect from him: unnecessary wars with Iran and Syria, retention of a significant amount of Obamacare, and increased overall spending largely due to increases in "defense" spending. Romney will expand TSA molestations, drones spying on Americans, NDAA 2012, and many other anti-freedom trends. Such incremental increases in tyranny and fiscal irresponsibility are the very things people are mad at Obama for. Romney has already shown a liking for strong arm tactics in his maneuvers to prevent Ron Paul from being considered for a vote at the GOP convention, and God knows what he'll be like once elected. Finally, for every neo-con warmonger such GW Bush, there follows a left-wing despot like Obama. Although Romney may be slightly better for the business climate today, in the long run he represents a temporary slowing down and not a reversal of detrimental policies.
Every four years, sages clamber for the American people to stop compromising and vote against a candidate who represents the establishment coterie of a political party which has had 150 years to be corrupted. And every year the mindless masses, due to a prisoner's dilemma mentality and fear, vote to keep out the major party candidate they dislike most. A lot of this is due to brainwashing in the media that accentuates differences between Republicans like Romney and Democrats like Obama, when functionally they are nearly identical. Obama maintained Bush's increases in spending, and George W Bush increased the benchmark of annual federal spending by more in his last four years than Obama has in his first four years.
Those voting for Gary Johnson know that they are voting for an honest man. Johnson is actually more qualified to run for president than Romney, having served two terms as governor instead of one, and having been named one of the most popular governors during his tenure unlike Romney.
Prior to becoming governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson started a business from the ground up which would eventually employ over one thousand people, and unlike Romney, he never received a bailout.
Johnson aims to solve all the problems of the day. He favors sustainable, sane levels of defense spending, and has a track record as governor of reducing spending and balancing the budget. Johnson knows how to say no, and has the backbone to veto all forms of excessive spending. His libertarian philosophy is conducive to a small government that permits maximum freedom for all. Thus, Gary Johnson is actually different from Obama in his preferred policies. Until the GOP and their talk-radio brainwashers allow the people a candidate such as Gary Johnson, they will not receive votes from anyone who is honest and fully informed, who also cares about fiscal well-being and personal freedom.
Libertarian Party candidate Rayburn Smith understands liberty and is a fiscal conservative. He will vote to curtail waste in the "defense" budget, and will oppose the burgeoning police state mentality and draconian measures such as NDAA2012.
Rayburn Smith's Republican opponent, Tom Smith (no relation), is an idiot who does not think for himself and believes the consensus among the Republican establishment is the only standard of truth. Case in point, Tom Smith deferred to Pat Toomey and Allen West on the indefinite detention clause in the NDAA 2012, without ever developing an opinion of his own on the subject. His only opinion seems to be conformity with the establishment. Tom Smith also stated that we must have a "balance" between liberty and security. Politicians only say that when they want to take away liberty, never when they want to allow more of it. It is clear that Tom Smith will not stand up for your freedom as long as he can use that ridiculous rationale for backing down. On the other hand, Rayburn Smith makes liberty a priority will protect us from tyrannical legislation.
The video below displays Tom the moron Smith's answer to a question on NDAA.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Santorum the Sophist
Rick Santorum supported a balanced budget amendment when Clinton was in office, yet voted for a total of 1.25 trillion in deficit spending from 2001-2006 while Bush was in office, and now again claims to support balancing the budget in his 2012 presidential campaign.
In ancient Athens, every citizen would serve a term the general assembly--Athens was a democracy. Citizens wanted to make speeches in support of things and wanted to sound convincing so others would vote for them. They thus consulted the Sophists, who were a group that taught how to argue effectively. The Sophists were primarily concerned with winning arguments and not, per se, with whether what they argued for was right or truthful. One famous sophist boasted that he could take either side in an argument and win.
Socrates, on the other hand, wanted to go beyond just arguing well and to really reach the truth. So concerned with the finding the purest truth was he, that he concluded that he knew nothing since he could find no such pure truth. Yet Socrates still had his opinions. For example, he thought democracy was doomed to fail because voters weren't smart enough to make it work--we would agree given our experience.
Anyway, "some contemporary social critics [including the NuPo] compare modern day advertisers, lawyers, and politicians to Greek sophists. Many of these people, the argument goes, are concerned only with convincing you to believe them, not with the truth."
We accuse Santorum of being a sophist. Santorum wants you to think he's a poster child for balancing the budget, but Where was his advocacy of balancing the budget when Bush II was in office? Santorum was too busy sabre rattling for the costly Iraq war and voting for spending increases such as Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. Perhaps Rick merely lost his way during the Bush years and forgot his balanced budget ideals.
Yet, it makes sense that one would want to constrict spending when a member of the opposing party is president but conveniently forget this desire when a member of your party is in office. Think about it, a president from your party will be more likely to sign on to your preferred spending (and that of your campaign contributors) than would a president from the opposing party.
Democrats have shown the same sophisms. Many may remember that the Democrats complained loudly about Bush's huge deficits, but now that Obama is in office, they are silent.
Is Santorum concerned only with getting us to believe he supports a balanced budget, when in reality he has no concrete plans to balance it? Indeed, in 2011 Santorum has called for more spending on foreign aid and implicitly for more spending on the Libya war since he supports remaining there. Spending increases are the last thing someone would advocate if he were was truly concerned with balancing the budget.
Are there any modern-day presidential candidates who truly support balancing the budget and do not argue like Sophists but more like Socratic altruists? Gary Johnson cut the size of government astronomically as governor of New Mexico. Ron Paul votes against every budget, believing each to have been to large. Both are opposed to the Libya war and Paul wants foreign aid to end. Johnson has offered a plan that would balance the budget by 2013. Paul plans to balance the budget. They do these things because they follow a philosophy of limited government, as a matter of principle. They have consistent records to match their avowed fiscally* conservative principles. But alas, just as Socrates was in the minority, so too are Paul and Johnson.
________________________
*Gary Johnson is a social moderate and Paul is a social conservative.
In ancient Athens, every citizen would serve a term the general assembly--Athens was a democracy. Citizens wanted to make speeches in support of things and wanted to sound convincing so others would vote for them. They thus consulted the Sophists, who were a group that taught how to argue effectively. The Sophists were primarily concerned with winning arguments and not, per se, with whether what they argued for was right or truthful. One famous sophist boasted that he could take either side in an argument and win.
Socrates, on the other hand, wanted to go beyond just arguing well and to really reach the truth. So concerned with the finding the purest truth was he, that he concluded that he knew nothing since he could find no such pure truth. Yet Socrates still had his opinions. For example, he thought democracy was doomed to fail because voters weren't smart enough to make it work--we would agree given our experience.
Anyway, "some contemporary social critics [including the NuPo] compare modern day advertisers, lawyers, and politicians to Greek sophists. Many of these people, the argument goes, are concerned only with convincing you to believe them, not with the truth."
We accuse Santorum of being a sophist. Santorum wants you to think he's a poster child for balancing the budget, but Where was his advocacy of balancing the budget when Bush II was in office? Santorum was too busy sabre rattling for the costly Iraq war and voting for spending increases such as Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. Perhaps Rick merely lost his way during the Bush years and forgot his balanced budget ideals.
Yet, it makes sense that one would want to constrict spending when a member of the opposing party is president but conveniently forget this desire when a member of your party is in office. Think about it, a president from your party will be more likely to sign on to your preferred spending (and that of your campaign contributors) than would a president from the opposing party.
Democrats have shown the same sophisms. Many may remember that the Democrats complained loudly about Bush's huge deficits, but now that Obama is in office, they are silent.
Is Santorum concerned only with getting us to believe he supports a balanced budget, when in reality he has no concrete plans to balance it? Indeed, in 2011 Santorum has called for more spending on foreign aid and implicitly for more spending on the Libya war since he supports remaining there. Spending increases are the last thing someone would advocate if he were was truly concerned with balancing the budget.
Are there any modern-day presidential candidates who truly support balancing the budget and do not argue like Sophists but more like Socratic altruists? Gary Johnson cut the size of government astronomically as governor of New Mexico. Ron Paul votes against every budget, believing each to have been to large. Both are opposed to the Libya war and Paul wants foreign aid to end. Johnson has offered a plan that would balance the budget by 2013. Paul plans to balance the budget. They do these things because they follow a philosophy of limited government, as a matter of principle. They have consistent records to match their avowed fiscally* conservative principles. But alas, just as Socrates was in the minority, so too are Paul and Johnson.
________________________
*Gary Johnson is a social moderate and Paul is a social conservative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)