Not Gary Johnson
Is it me or is this guy the worst Libertarian ever? Because nothing says statist like forcing someone else to pay for weather.
Gary Johnson Backs CO2 ‘Fee’ To Fight Global WarmingThe Daily Caller reports:
Libertarian Party presidential nominee and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson said he’s no skeptic of man-made global warming and endorsed a “fee” on carbon dioxide emissions.
“I do believe that climate change is occurring,” Johnson said. “I do believe that it is man-caused” and “that there can be and is a free-market approach to climate change.”
Johnson’s “free market” approach to global warming includes “a fee — not a tax, he said — placed on carbon” to make those who emit the greenhouse gas pay the supposed cost of their actions, according to the Juneau Empire.
When he can get the Chinese on board, I'll listen.
While it is clear that Johnson is not really libertarian in anything but name, it is also important to remember that the free-market doesn't solve all problems.
Even ones it addresses better than any other system.
Human stupidity is one such problem. In a free-market, you still have both the problem of people choosing to pursue stupid ends while refusing to acknowledge the consequences and of people being tricked into believing in 'consequences' that have not and cannot occur. A free-market does leave people far more liable for the consequences of their own actions, and this makes it harder for people to be habitually and willfully stupid. But habitual, willful stupidity is not the only kind of stupidity there is. Actual, legitimate mental incapacity is not merely habit nor is it willful. Libertarians generally don't discuss this enough, because...well, habitual and willful stupidity, I guess.
But a free-market also fails to ensure that arbitration mechanisms for redress of harms won't be stupid on occasion, particularly when dealing with accusations of causing 'harm' to a commons that cannot be readily privatized, like the atmosphere. Everyone needs to breathe, no humans make oxygen, and the level of understanding of meteorology necessary to make a reasonable assessment of whether someone is really damaging the atmosphere is...not as general as either of those, but much closer to something nobody has than something everyone does.
In fact, the total numbers on CO2 released into the atmosphere are so staggering as to make all human action, both in releasing and drawing down carbon, utterly trivial. This is not to say that we shouldn't keep an eye on the situation, or that burning down entire continents has no bad effects, or that it would be impossible in principle for a world population of a few trillion to need to carefully balance CO2 release and draw-down (though by that time it might be more practical just to have everyone be responsible for their private air supply as well as insisting they not alter the atmosphere generally). It is not to say that there are no other pollutants that have more severe effects on the ability of people to use the atmosphere as a breathable resource. Rather, a careful view of the available evidence and some calculation reveals that carbon taxes (or 'fees', a thorn by any other name) and credits are entirely disproportionate to any actual harm or benefits associated with human action affecting atmospheric CO2.
But people can be fooled, including whoever you put in charge of arbitrating claims that someone is damaging the atmosphere by releasing 'too much' or 'more than their fair share' of CO2. Having a free-market wouldn't change this. A genuine free-market libertarian could be wrong about it too.
Johnson isn't one.
You don't vote for president the election is not decided by The People and if it was this guy sure ain't the answer.
He's irrelevant. Why waste space on him? I can't tell the difference between this dolt and Bernie Sanders.
Infiltrate, divide, disrupt, destroy. The National Libertarian Party is fully compromised. I'm voting Constitution party this year. I have a few problems with some of their social issue ideas, but, Darrell Castle is a far superior candidate to Gary Johnson.
It seems Gary Johnson became the typical mainstreamer towards the beginning of this election cycle. Everything out of his mouth, not just the CO2 issue, sounds like someone jumping on the globalist/NWO bandwagon. What caused him to flip like this, I don't know. I even voted for him in 2012. Now he's against anything the Libertarian Party stood for just a few years ago. Gun control, TTP, open borders, you name it, this guy's now going along with it. How the Libertarian Party is standing for this I have no idea
Gary Johnson is the LiberaLtarian candidate.
Many many years ago, the two "main" parties saw the Liberty Movement rising. They saw that We The People were growing weary of their antics. They had to act, in unison (ironically) or as they call it - 'Bi-Partisanly" to counteract this threat they saw from the body politic.
Their fear was that Individual Liberty would finally overcome the two party theme, that folks would assemble together aside from their two party game. They wanted to keep the people divided, rather than see them assemble together. A central idea of what is the libertarian mindset is "you do your thing, and I will do my thing, you don't mess with me and I don't mess with you. We might not agree on what to do or not do, but we respect each other on the level that matters - you have your choice and I have mine. The fact is - the vast majority of Americans agree with this mindset, and the party hacks friggin know it.
So how do they counteract this unity factor? They quite dishonorably stick another L in libertarian, making it Liberaltarian. They control the Libertarian Party from the top down, in true collectivist fashion and centrally plan its demise. They make it so obviosly distasteful to its very namesake that people turn away from it worse than they do the traditional two party game.
Then, when they started to see a rise in the party because so many people are voting Libertarian in place of the absent "none of the above" vote, the controllers of the two party monopoly had to act again. Here comes the Green Party along with several others. The two partiers employed their same basic strategy of DIVIDE and then conquer.
Now, the Libertarian Party is established on most ballots around the country. The Ballot Access game has been overcome in large measure. Signature requirements matching the two main parties as example. So those bad actors are left with doing what they have always done in their own parties - control the candidate via media access. Literally install who they want, like Romney, Like Hillary.....wait for it.....Like Johnson.
By far and wide, the overwhelming vast majority of Americans just want to be left alone, to go about their own business without government poking them, shaking them down for money and being told what they can and cannot do - especially by permission slip. Americans by and large just want their rights, their Liberty, and have no interest in bothering others or forcing others to comply with their own petty demands. Indeed, most Americans really are small L...l...libertarian. Now, the only way to avoid a small libertarian person from winning election is to make sure the Libertarian Party candidate is not libertarian at all.
And that is exactly what they did. Gary Johnson.
He is a liberal in Libertarian clothing. Him and Weld are both globalists.
People have the right to be stupid, willfully ignorant, if they so choose. They must endure the consequences of their own choice, even if they are harsh. Government is not and cannot be tasked with protecting people from themselves, from their own stupidity.
Mental incapacity ya say? Don't discuss this "enough" eh? Imagine that, how libertarian of you to be the decider of what is "enough". Note - Remember when Obama said that, "at some point, a person has made ENOUGH money"? Notice the similarity to your comment, your use of "enough"? Ahem.
NOBODY is "qualified" to decide what is "damaging" to the "Atmosphere". Why? Because nobody knows what the perfect atmosphere IS in the first place, thus they are unable to say what is good or bad with authority to impose it upon another.
A true libertarian mindset would come to this conclusion - there is no basis for imposing any kind of tax or fee on something nobody can own in the first place. It is outside the parameters of government's purpose. You see, the free market is exactly what would 'protect' the environement in the first place.
Example - if a company is harming a water supply, actually polluting it, then harm is demonstrated. When harm is demonstrable, two things happen. One, a owner is held accountable for the harm they have done and two, people will choose to do business with that company or not. Choice. Free. Market.
In the event that stupid people enrich a company that poisons a river with plutonium, so be it. If they die in droves because of it, so be it. You see what happens as accountability is handed out? Stupid people are themselves weeded out. Their own choices leading to their own demise is a consequence they must endure.
See, a company cannot continue to harm people in demonstrable ways endlessly. Either they are bankrupted by the harm they did and are no more, or the stupid people die off and they go out of business because there are no more stupid people to do business with them and their harmful ways.
See how it works out int he wash, when there is no government in the front end - relegated to OUTSIDE private contracts? It works, and that shows that less government is better - something government fears to the core of their bones.
The free market is not a failure on any of those levels. The failure comes from trying anything BUT a free market trying to justify it by singing the sad sad song of "compassion for the mentally less capable".
Guess what? In a free market society, absent government interference, those who WANT to render aid to the less mentally capable will do so of their own volition. The failure is not recognizing this self evident solution and result of the free market unfettered.
Nah! He's just F-ing stupid for thinking he can peel off a few voters from hillary.
Domino says even she knows a typo when she sees one. This guy isn't a "Libertarian," he's a "Libtard."
Bill and Domino
Johnson & Weld have pretty much destroyed the libertarian party when it comes to standing for their founding principles but isn't that pretty much what Trump & Hillary are doing for their parties too?
In the mean time it's "we the people" that is/will be getting screwed,by whoever gets elected, the republic is over don't ya know!
That party went the way of the Reform Party, selling out for name recognition, back when it nominated Bob Barr. Schmucks.
Interesting answers. But maybe the wrong questions.
Who will pay this "carbon fee" and who will do the collecting?
To what purpose will the collected sums be put?
Will the Number one total emitter of GHG's (China) and the top emitter per capita (Canada) be subject to the same fees as the world's biggest Sugar Daddy, the USA?
Remember what "Deep Throat" told Woodward and Bernstein: "Follow the money!"
Offtopic, but related, if you need the specifics on how CO2 GW is a farce, Dr. Salby does a fantastic job. His utilization of C14 and the nuclear test ban treaty to trainwreck the IPCC scam is the stuff of legend. But there's so much more, and its all as devastating to them.
I say anybody who agrees with a proposed tax or "fee" is looking to benefit somehow by it. This guy ain't no "Libertarian", but just another money-hungry politician who deserves nothing more than to be hanged along with the rest of them, when that day comes.
Aside from that, he's obviously never looked at the ice-core sample results indicating that global warming and cooling is a NATURAL cycle that's been going on far longer than people (of any kind) have been around, assuming anthropologist are correct (and I suspect they aren't). Besides, one good puff from any decent sized volcano puts out more CO2 or carbon than all the world's industries combined for a few years.
What does he think governments should do - levy a fine on volcanos?
I quit the LP in '99 - the writing was on the wall then. When I vote, I write in, "I do not consent to be governed by these candidates."
I guess he is to stupid to realize that CO2 is "tree food" along with rain water the trees store the carbon and release the oxygen for us humans to breath. Guess he never got the chance to go walking around in the woods after a summer shower and breath in the fresh clean air.
So, Johnson wants a "carbon fee", and plays the same tax vs fee game played with Obamacare, while his running mate, Bill Weld wants a task force to look at blocking some folks from buying guns, presumably without due process.
Does this sound like any "Libertarian" ticket you've heard of before? Sort of negates many of the Libertarian arguments that gave their party validity for those seeking an alternative party for a protest vote.
Just one more sign how strange this year as gone. Is there anyone left who thinks this election will fix anything?
He's no libertarian...never has been. He claimed he was for fiscal responsibility in his last campaign and was in debt the whole time. He's a failed Republican that ran as one last election cycle, couldn't garner enough support from the R party and then switched to L to try and get on the ballot...which he did...and gained around 1-2% of the total vote. He's a statistical zero and will only take votes away from anyone opposing Hillary.
I wish this party had been around long enough before the coming election: http://veteranspartyofamerica.org/
I'd like to hear more of what their candidates have to say. It sounds far more constitutional, and certainly more libertarian than the party with that name.
I don't understand how poisoning the air and water human populations depend on for survival can be more permissible under libertarian theory than forming a tyrannical government to enslave those people.
I get that these activities are different, I just don't see the point of forbidding the latter if you'll permit the former. The reason big government is wrong is because it ruins everyone's lives. To the degree that the same thing was actually happening with pollution (which it is NOT), I'm personally very comfortable with opposing it.
Of course, I'm also willing to allow or even do it myself if I believe there is a compelling moral reason. Which there might be. But if libertarianism requires that we fight anything that is merely called one thing rather than another regardless of the provable effects of either, I don't believe anyone should be a libertarian.
As for Liberaltarians, that's a good one. It fills a hole in my vocabulary left by my refusal to say "left-libertarian" as if that was a real thing someone could be.
Fee, Fie, foe, fum,
I smell the blood of
Hahah, okay, libtardian works too.
He's worse than Ron Paul. Who votes for these assholes? Worse than his son.....
Who votes for these assholes? Worse than Ron Paul's dreamer world
Johnson's just a vote siphon.
Post a Comment