5 ms·

Why not more Gary Johnson supporters?

carsongross 10y ago
Because there has been a collapse in right-leaning libertarianism in the post Ron Paul era. Libertarianism has shifted to the left and there has been an exodus of right-libertarians to various flavors of nationalism. I think this is one of the major intellectual stories of the last decade, largely uncovered by the media.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  I would argue that it is the right's embrace of authoritarianism rooted in nativist and nationalist (some might even say racist) sentiments that pushed libertarians to the left, which is traditionally the sphere of people who have been historically oppressed or just want to be left alone.
- noobermin 10y ago
  >exodus of right-libertarians to various flavors of nationalism. How does a libertarian become a nationalist? Trump sure seems to facillitate "USA pride" but his politics and economics are not that libertarian at all. How can nationalistic pride win over what I thought was the center of the libertarian philosophy?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > How does a libertarian become a nationalist? Right-libertarians in the US already generally were nationalists (nationalism is a very common, if not defining, element of the right-wing orientation), and generally had the least opposition for government action in the same areas where authoritarian nationalists tend to focus on preferring government action, which is why lots of right-libertarians have always been within the Republican fold rather than voting for the Libertarian Party.
  - carsongross 10y ago
    There is a fundamental problem, some would say contradiction, in libertarian reasoning: if you have an open libertarian society with open borders, non-libertarian inclined people who are none the less interested in the prosperity of libertarian societies can move in and eventually destroy that libertarian society. An internally libertarian society with strong immigration control solves this problem and would be called "nationalist" by most traditional libertarians.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      This applies to any ideology: if you have an X society, non X people can join and destroy X society. With the caveat that most Xs are not open, thus no contradiction by closing society X. So only libertarianism suffers from this contradiction.
  - Apocryphon 10y ago
    In addition to the sibling comments, there's also the critique of libertarianism as inherently being for those who have "made it." As it, it is easier to agitate for less government regulation and no social welfare net, if one does not benefit from such. And so libertarianism becomes a cover for protecting one's status of privilege. Thus, a shift to "traditional" conservatism which protects that privilege, as typified by nationalism, would be natural for a disgruntled libertarian. This is one critique that has been made and is of course debatable. It's important to not simply evaluate a political ideology by its tenets, but also the demographics of its supporters, to understand the "culture" that grows around a belief system. We often do the same to religions, after all.
    - fweespeech 10y ago
      > In addition to the sibling comments, there's also the critique of libertarianism as inherently being for those who have "made it." As it, it is easier to agitate for less government regulation and no social welfare net, if one does not benefit from such. And so libertarianism becomes a cover for protecting one's status of privilege. Thus, a shift to "traditional" conservatism which protects that privilege, as typified by nationalism, would be natural for a disgruntled libertarian. Yeah, but its a product of the right/authoritarian side of the libertarians. The left-leaning libertarians who tactically vote Democrat are fine with safety nets: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/7/17/1314751/-13-Tenets-of-the-Leftist-Libertarian http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/7/17/1314751/-13-Tenets-o...
      - Apocryphon 10y ago
        I'm not sure if they're right in the sense of authoritarian (though certainly the more authoritarian ones make it easier to jump to libertarian). I would think they're right in the sense of being more in favor of unfettered corporate power. Anarcho-capitalism.
fweespeech 10y ago
> Why not more Gary Johnson supporters? Because Peter Thiel, among others, are largely operating on a hybrid ideology with the pillars of Nativism/Nationalism & Libertarianism. Gary Johnson is pretty much a pure in the middle of the right/left axis among the range that is called "Libertarian". He is too left-leaning for many of the people that call themselves Libertarian but want to be able to enforce their beliefs on other people.
- noobermin 10y ago
  >But want to be able to enforce their beliefs on other people. Is there not a more contradictory thing to say? I don't know how libertarians are okay with others using their moniker for something that doesn't seem libertarian.
  - fweespeech 10y ago
    > Is there not a more contradictory thing to say? I don't know how Libertarians are okay with others using their moniker for something that doesn't seem libertarian. Its doublethink, yes. Thiel publicly proclaims he is a libertarian but his genuine, underlying belief is he can change the world and enforce his beliefs upon it. This is pretty much the antithesis of Gary Johnson who is very much the live and let live libertarian. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education... > I remain committed to the faith of my teenage years: to authentic human freedom as a precondition for the highest good. I stand against confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, and the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual. For all these reasons, I still call myself “libertarian.” > But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. By tracing out the development of my thinking, I hope to frame some of the challenges faced by all classical liberals today. http://archive.is/pQc1F http://archive.is/pQc1F > He is now not so much a libertarian as a corporate Nietzschean, who believes in the power of gifted entrepreneurs to change the world through the sheer force of will and intellect.
  - __derek__ 10y ago
aliston 10y ago
Personally, I'd probably align most with Gary Johnson, but feel like he has virtually no chance of winning, so there's no point in wasting my vote. Like most Americans in this election cycle, I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. I think there are lots and lots of folks in Silicon Valley that feel the same way. One thing that I've never really understood is why the valley apparently leans so far left. On its face, the sorts of policies that the left tends to advocate for would run counter to the things that Silicon Valley stands for: higher taxes, more regulation of businesses, more intervention in housing markets, higher marginal tax rates on "the rich" (AKA a middle class salary here) etc. I assume that those who vote on the left either feel there are more important issues at stake, that those aren't really things the left stands for, or have enough money that it doesn't matter... would be curious to hear someone explain their reasoning, though.
- Miner49er 10y ago
  It doesn't matter if he has a chance to win. If you don't live in a swing state a vote for Gary most definitely counts more then a vote for a candidate of a major party, because if he gets above 5% of the popular vote the Libertarian party gets funding from the government and more recognition. It's the first step to end the 2 party system we have now. You should vote for who you like best, not who you think actually has a chance to win. Gary can still do really well if he gets into the debates. Who knows, in a few months it might actually seem like he has a chance to win.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    We're not really going to "end the 2 party system" unless we move from first-past-the-post. We may change which two parties (or, my more realistic hope, change up the particular alliances that make up the two parties).
- actsasbuffoon 10y ago
  I appreciate the frank nature of your post. As a left leaning person (though I lean right on nuclear power, drugs, and a few other issues) I'll try to answer as honestly as possible. > higher taxes I'm fine with higher taxes for some purposes. As a fairly high income earner, my tax bill hurts quite a bit. Still, when I was a kid I had a single mom. She had to go on welfare for a little while, and it was rough on her. I think it's the first time I ever saw her cry. Obviously there are some people who abuse the system, but I feel like we have to keep providing anyway. The money that we collected for those few months kept us from being homeless. I like to think it as an investment in my future by the tax payers. I've paid more in now than I took, so it worked out. > more regulation of businesses Not always a good thing, but I can get behind some regulations. I think the repeal of Glass-Steagall was probably a mistake (thanks, Bill), and likely contributed to the 2008 bubble burst. Things like the FDA, and OSHA seem like examples of good regulation. They're certainly imperfect, and have made mistakes. On the whole though, I think they've been a net positive. > more intervention in housing markets Not much of an opinion on this one. > higher marginal tax rates on "the rich" (AKA a middle class salary here) etc. Hillary's plan calls for a 4% tax hike on incomes over $5 million. Software developer salary is pretty good, but I don't think anyone's salary is that high.
13years 10y ago
Gary will appeal to libertarian leaning, but much less to principled libertarians. A lot of his recent statements have come across as major disappointments to core libertarians. Such as his support of Hillary over her emails, reluctance to audit the fed, support for basic income and his VP pick which is seen as purely establishment.
- Miner49er 10y ago
  Basic income actually is a pretty Libertarian idea IMO. It gives people the choice to spend their money however, unlike food stamps and other benefits. It's gonna be needed eventually as more jobs are automated as well.
  - 13years 10y ago
    I know it is accepted by some where it is definitely seen as at least better than the existing method of providing support. However, a lot of libertarians follow a non aggression principle, which says you can't use force or violence against anyone except to protect their liberty. Basic income isn't compatible with that principle in that you will have to extract that resource by force from other people violating their property rights.
    - Miner49er 10y ago
      Yeah, very true, I hadn't really thought about it that way. It does violate pure Libertarianism, but it might be necessary in the future.

Because there has been a collapse in right-leaning libertarianism in the post Ron Paul era. Libertarianism has shifted to the left and there has been an exodus of right-libertarians to various flavors of nationalism. I think this is one of the major intellectual stories of the last decade, largely uncovered by the media.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
I would argue that it is the right's embrace of authoritarianism rooted in nativist and nationalist (some might even say racist) sentiments that pushed libertarians to the left, which is traditionally the sphere of people who have been historically oppressed or just want to be left alone.
noobermin 10y ago
>exodus of right-libertarians to various flavors of nationalism. How does a libertarian become a nationalist? Trump sure seems to facillitate "USA pride" but his politics and economics are not that libertarian at all. How can nationalistic pride win over what I thought was the center of the libertarian philosophy?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > How does a libertarian become a nationalist? Right-libertarians in the US already generally were nationalists (nationalism is a very common, if not defining, element of the right-wing orientation), and generally had the least opposition for government action in the same areas where authoritarian nationalists tend to focus on preferring government action, which is why lots of right-libertarians have always been within the Republican fold rather than voting for the Libertarian Party.
- carsongross 10y ago
  There is a fundamental problem, some would say contradiction, in libertarian reasoning: if you have an open libertarian society with open borders, non-libertarian inclined people who are none the less interested in the prosperity of libertarian societies can move in and eventually destroy that libertarian society. An internally libertarian society with strong immigration control solves this problem and would be called "nationalist" by most traditional libertarians.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    This applies to any ideology: if you have an X society, non X people can join and destroy X society. With the caveat that most Xs are not open, thus no contradiction by closing society X. So only libertarianism suffers from this contradiction.
- Apocryphon 10y ago
  In addition to the sibling comments, there's also the critique of libertarianism as inherently being for those who have "made it." As it, it is easier to agitate for less government regulation and no social welfare net, if one does not benefit from such. And so libertarianism becomes a cover for protecting one's status of privilege. Thus, a shift to "traditional" conservatism which protects that privilege, as typified by nationalism, would be natural for a disgruntled libertarian. This is one critique that has been made and is of course debatable. It's important to not simply evaluate a political ideology by its tenets, but also the demographics of its supporters, to understand the "culture" that grows around a belief system. We often do the same to religions, after all.
  - fweespeech 10y ago
    > In addition to the sibling comments, there's also the critique of libertarianism as inherently being for those who have "made it." As it, it is easier to agitate for less government regulation and no social welfare net, if one does not benefit from such. And so libertarianism becomes a cover for protecting one's status of privilege. Thus, a shift to "traditional" conservatism which protects that privilege, as typified by nationalism, would be natural for a disgruntled libertarian. Yeah, but its a product of the right/authoritarian side of the libertarians. The left-leaning libertarians who tactically vote Democrat are fine with safety nets: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/7/17/1314751/-13-Tenets-of-the-Leftist-Libertarian http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/7/17/1314751/-13-Tenets-o...
    - Apocryphon 10y ago
      I'm not sure if they're right in the sense of authoritarian (though certainly the more authoritarian ones make it easier to jump to libertarian). I would think they're right in the sense of being more in favor of unfettered corporate power. Anarcho-capitalism.

fweespeech 10y ago

> Why not more Gary Johnson supporters? Because Peter Thiel, among others, are largely operating on a hybrid ideology with the pillars of Nativism/Nationalism & Libertarianism. Gary Johnson is pretty much a pure in the middle of the right/left axis among the range that is called "Libertarian". He is too left-leaning for many of the people that call themselves Libertarian but want to be able to enforce their beliefs on other people.

noobermin 10y ago
>But want to be able to enforce their beliefs on other people. Is there not a more contradictory thing to say? I don't know how libertarians are okay with others using their moniker for something that doesn't seem libertarian.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  > Is there not a more contradictory thing to say? I don't know how Libertarians are okay with others using their moniker for something that doesn't seem libertarian. Its doublethink, yes. Thiel publicly proclaims he is a libertarian but his genuine, underlying belief is he can change the world and enforce his beliefs upon it. This is pretty much the antithesis of Gary Johnson who is very much the live and let live libertarian. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education... > I remain committed to the faith of my teenage years: to authentic human freedom as a precondition for the highest good. I stand against confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, and the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual. For all these reasons, I still call myself “libertarian.” > But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. By tracing out the development of my thinking, I hope to frame some of the challenges faced by all classical liberals today. http://archive.is/pQc1F http://archive.is/pQc1F > He is now not so much a libertarian as a corporate Nietzschean, who believes in the power of gifted entrepreneurs to change the world through the sheer force of will and intellect.
- __derek__ 10y ago

aliston 10y ago

Personally, I'd probably align most with Gary Johnson, but feel like he has virtually no chance of winning, so there's no point in wasting my vote. Like most Americans in this election cycle, I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. I think there are lots and lots of folks in Silicon Valley that feel the same way. One thing that I've never really understood is why the valley apparently leans so far left. On its face, the sorts of policies that the left tends to advocate for would run counter to the things that Silicon Valley stands for: higher taxes, more regulation of businesses, more intervention in housing markets, higher marginal tax rates on "the rich" (AKA a middle class salary here) etc. I assume that those who vote on the left either feel there are more important issues at stake, that those aren't really things the left stands for, or have enough money that it doesn't matter... would be curious to hear someone explain their reasoning, though.

Miner49er 10y ago
It doesn't matter if he has a chance to win. If you don't live in a swing state a vote for Gary most definitely counts more then a vote for a candidate of a major party, because if he gets above 5% of the popular vote the Libertarian party gets funding from the government and more recognition. It's the first step to end the 2 party system we have now. You should vote for who you like best, not who you think actually has a chance to win. Gary can still do really well if he gets into the debates. Who knows, in a few months it might actually seem like he has a chance to win.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  We're not really going to "end the 2 party system" unless we move from first-past-the-post. We may change which two parties (or, my more realistic hope, change up the particular alliances that make up the two parties).
actsasbuffoon 10y ago
I appreciate the frank nature of your post. As a left leaning person (though I lean right on nuclear power, drugs, and a few other issues) I'll try to answer as honestly as possible. > higher taxes I'm fine with higher taxes for some purposes. As a fairly high income earner, my tax bill hurts quite a bit. Still, when I was a kid I had a single mom. She had to go on welfare for a little while, and it was rough on her. I think it's the first time I ever saw her cry. Obviously there are some people who abuse the system, but I feel like we have to keep providing anyway. The money that we collected for those few months kept us from being homeless. I like to think it as an investment in my future by the tax payers. I've paid more in now than I took, so it worked out. > more regulation of businesses Not always a good thing, but I can get behind some regulations. I think the repeal of Glass-Steagall was probably a mistake (thanks, Bill), and likely contributed to the 2008 bubble burst. Things like the FDA, and OSHA seem like examples of good regulation. They're certainly imperfect, and have made mistakes. On the whole though, I think they've been a net positive. > more intervention in housing markets Not much of an opinion on this one. > higher marginal tax rates on "the rich" (AKA a middle class salary here) etc. Hillary's plan calls for a 4% tax hike on incomes over $5 million. Software developer salary is pretty good, but I don't think anyone's salary is that high.

13years 10y ago

Gary will appeal to libertarian leaning, but much less to principled libertarians. A lot of his recent statements have come across as major disappointments to core libertarians. Such as his support of Hillary over her emails, reluctance to audit the fed, support for basic income and his VP pick which is seen as purely establishment.

Miner49er 10y ago
Basic income actually is a pretty Libertarian idea IMO. It gives people the choice to spend their money however, unlike food stamps and other benefits. It's gonna be needed eventually as more jobs are automated as well.
- 13years 10y ago
  I know it is accepted by some where it is definitely seen as at least better than the existing method of providing support. However, a lot of libertarians follow a non aggression principle, which says you can't use force or violence against anyone except to protect their liberty. Basic income isn't compatible with that principle in that you will have to extract that resource by force from other people violating their property rights.
  - Miner49er 10y ago
    Yeah, very true, I hadn't really thought about it that way. It does violate pure Libertarianism, but it might be necessary in the future.