patrick.net

Which answer are you going to delete?

Former Governor Gary Johnnson is much better than Romnesia. The libertarians actually believe in liberty, including ending the drug war. Even with their small numbers, Libertarians have a better chance of balancing the budget and cutting taxes than Romnesia, because his numbers are imaginary and he won't remember them anyway. A reason not to vote for Johnson is, if you live in a battleground state, it is conceivable that a small number of votes might tip the balance toward Romnesia, which would be the worst possible outcome.

The Professor says

However, you can spew whatever drivel you want. I will not delete your posts on this thread.

Do you have any opinions on this discussion?

So you only delete perfectly reasonable comments (comments that you even quote) on your conspiracy thread. OK.

I was really into the Libertarian party for a while, even hanging out with luminaries such as Harry Browne and Richard Boddie.

Two reasons I became disillusioned with the LP itself (though not the principle.)

First, they are SO radically free market optimists that they throw the baby out with the bathwater every time. They think the free market will trump human avarice and greed.

Second, it presupposes that all humans make mathematically optimum decisions if only left to their own devices.

A true Libertarian government would thrive the longest on an island populated by upper managers. It doesn't thrive well in a society composed of the entire spectrum of human ability and efficacy. Then, soon enough, they would discover that a life of subsistence farming and homesteading (Galt's gulch, anyone?) does NOT advance human potential like they thought.

I think the Greens have a better chance of becoming a viable third party than the Libertarians, though I am most like a libertarian. This is a sorry state of affairs.

A vote for the libertarians is a vote for Romney in this election, and I cannot countenance that.

The Professor says

Off topic, but yeah I have deleted some perfectly reasonable comments on my "conspiracy" thread.

Which obviously begs the question...

The Professor says

Bigsby says

Which obviously begs the question...

What do you think about Gary Johnson?

I couldn't care less about him. What do you think about censorship?

The Professor says

I believe in the freedom of speech.

You can say whatever you want.

And you do.

So you have no opinion on the topic of this discussion?

Says the person who has been happily censoring perfectly reasonable responses in his other thread.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

The Professor says

I believe in the freedom of speech.

You can say whatever you want.

And you do.

So you have no opinion on the topic of this discussion?

Says the person who has been happily censoring perfectly reasonable responses in his other thread.

Happily

Freedom of speech indeed.

The Professor says

Freedom of speech does not mean the loudest and most obnoxious gets to be heard above all others.

Then you should stop posting. You've been deleting perfectly reasoned responses to what you've been posting. If someone shows what you are saying to be a complete fallacy, then you delete it. That has nothing to do with being the loudest or the most obnoxious. What you are doing is just pathetic.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

What you are doing is just pathetic.

I suggest you start your own discussion and post all of your "evidence".

Mostly I delete your opinions. I also delete your vulgarity.

Exactly how many posts were made in the original thread? There is no need for any more. It's as simple as that. What you do and what you say deserves nothing but the utmost contempt.

Looks like tthe Professor's threads aren't worth posting to. :(

I'll start out by admitting that I don't know much about Gary Johnson, so I can't speak on that aspect. Instead let me explain why I am not a libertarian, and why I find libertarians tiresome to discuss politics with.

In a nutshell,

• I think evidence is important. Not every policy issue can be treated as a logical syllogism, and
• I don't like it when people think they know the answer before they've heard the question

A libertarian is someone who believes that, for every political issue, you don't need to learn much about any subject and you don't start by looking at the evidence. Instead they believe that you can come to a decision simply by applying libertarian principals to the problem!

For example with health care: a libertarian could see all the evidence in the world that single-payer systems not only can work, they DO work in a wide variety of implementations around the world. The libertarian will either deny the evidence, attempt to explain it away ("somehow the statistics MUST be wrong, those other countries MUST be cheating!"), or insist that "tyrrany" is always wrong no matter what.

I think this is the big reason why libertarianism is so popular among college students - these are people who, in general, are fairly good at reasoning but haven't yet learned that much about the world. Being a libertarian allows them to form opinions on all kinds of subjects that they have no experience with and know nothing about.

A reasonable small-government conservative (there aren't many of them) holds a lot of the same general principals as a libertarian. The difference is, with the SGC they would at least be open to making an exception to these principals if they saw enough evidence to convince them.

Here in California I'm a moderate liberal; in a lot of the country I'd be considered quite left wing. I agree with Libertarians on some social issues, but it doesn't really matter because when it comes to voting the Libertarians don't consider those issues as important as taxes/regulation and will end up supporting the Republican when push comes to shove. "The republicans want to take a way some of my freedoms, but the democrats LITERALLY want to enslave me!" they will whine. Sheesh.

bdrasin says

I agree with Libertarians on some social issues, but it doesn't really matter because when it comes to voting the Libertarians don't consider those issues as important as taxes/regulation and will end up supporting the Republican when push comes to shove.

It's difficult to generalize but your statement does have some evidence to support it in recent years, partly because the Koch brothers own 50% of the Cato Institute. There has been litigation as Charles Koch has reportedly tried to emphasize the interests of Koch Industries at the expense of other libertarian priorities. David Koch ran for President as the Libertarian nominee against Ronald Reagan in 1980, donates to PBS and Nova and art museums, and supports same-sex marriage, but ended up endorsing Romnesia. There can be different priorities within political parties, even within families. With life experience most people adjust to evidence, and for example David Koch has probably adjusted to the fact that his 1980 campaign didn't result in becoming President, so he has to choose the lesser of two evils, so he ends up siding with Koch Industries' POV. That isn't an argument against Gary Johnson per se, in fact it might be an argument in favor of Johnson.

bdrasin says

I think this is the big reason why libertarianism is so popular among college students - these are people who, in general, are fairly good at reasoning but haven't yet learned that much about the world. Being a libertarian allows them to form opinions on all kinds of subjects that they have no experience with and know nothing about.

You forgot that they have zero skin in the game. It's easy to be proactive if you have absolutely nothing to lose.

curious2 says

With life experience most people adjust to evidence, and for example David Koch has probably adjusted to the fact that his 1980 campaign didn't result in becoming President, so he has to choose the lesser of two evils, so he ends up siding with Koch Industries' POV.

Well, probably so...I don't really know much about Koch either, I'm just talking about libertarians I know personally and have discussed politics with. I'm sorry, if you are never, ever going to be willing to pull the lever for a democrat (not necessarily all the time, but at least some of the time) then your liberal social positions don't count for squat and your claim to hold a hybrid political position is hollow.