Gary Johnson incongruent with Libertarians?

 

Robert Wezel: "What is your favorite Murray Rothbard book?"

Gary Johson: (after saying he had read Rothbard earlier in the inverview) "If I said I had read Murray Rothbard, I have NOT read Murray Rothbard."

 

Robert Wenzel: "What about Ludwig von Mises?"

Gary Johnson: "well uhh.. you know I have just read excerpts from Von Mises; look Bob if your out to catch me you've got me, you know you've got me, hook line sinker, you know I'm not sure.."

 

Robert Wenzel: "What about Henry Hazlit, do you have a favorite of one of his books?"

Gary Johnson: (Changes the subject, I guess he couldn't remember "Economics in One Lesson" at the time.)

(Then comes back with) "...Henry Hazlitt, no I have no read Henry Hazlitt."

 

Nice condescending interview. Typical Wenzel.

 

Bob, ... buddy. Most hardcore Libertarians, those of us that are Constitutionalists, would also oppose the implied executive powers necessary to unilaterally abolish the Federal Reserve. You have it all over Johnson when it comes to Austrian economics, but you are obviously oblivious to the workings of politics.

 

One of my problems with the economic hardcore faction of the LPA is those that truly believe that regional banks can support the federal treasury. Contrary to what Bob says, history shows that the absence of a central bank has left this country in peril on those occasions that there has not been one. See War of 1812 after Jefferson allowed the charter for the Bank of the United States to expire in 1811. Madison had to struggle to finance the defense of the country, so much so, that he backed the charter for the second national bank, which Jefferson also opposed. I want the government out of my life, but I do believe that there should be central control over certain things.

 

Having said all of that, I am disappointed in how Johnson handled the interview. When he found himself in an attack he responded poorly. It was obvious he had no idea what he was getting himself into and knew nothing about his host. That, in my book, is unforgivable for a candidate for POTUS.

He might have been high.

 

I like Gary but he has to get his stuff together if he wants to be taken seriously.

Nice condescending interview. Typical Wenzel.

 

Bob, ... buddy. Most hardcore Libertarians, those of us that are Constitutionalists, would also oppose the implied executive powers necessary to unilaterally abolish the Federal Reserve. You have it all over Johnson when it comes to Austrian economics, but you are obviously oblivious to the workings of politics.

 

One of my problems with the economic hardcore faction of the LPA is those that truly believe that regional banks can support the federal treasury. Contrary to what Bob says, history shows that the absence of a central bank has left this country in peril on those occasions that there has not been one. See War of 1812 after Jefferson allowed the charter for the Bank of the United States to expire in 1811. Madison had to struggle to finance the defense of the country, so much so, that he backed the charter for the second national bank, which Jefferson also opposed. I want the government out of my life, but I do believe that there should be central control over certain things.

 

Having said all of that, I am disappointed in how Johnson handled the interview. When he found himself in an attack he responded poorly. It was obvious he had no idea what he was getting himself into and knew nothing about his host. That, in my book, is unforgivable for a candidate for POTUS.

 

We can dispute Austrian economics in a separate thread..The fact is most hardcore Libertarians follow Austrian principles and that includes abolishing the Fed. How can the candidate running for the Libertarian party be this out-of-touch with free market economics?

 

This interview, IMO, should turn many Libertarians away from Gary Johnson.

Admittedly, I like Gary Johnson. But, that interview didn't do anything to deter me. The problem with most "hardcore" libertarians, especially the Libertarian party, is their seeming distaste for pragmatism. They nominate a guy who has successfully implemented his ideas and is making a convincing case for people to take the Libertarian party seriously and this interviewer wastes his time quizzing him on esoteric authors.

Admittedly, I like Gary Johnson. But, that interview didn't do anything to deter me. The problem with most "hardcore" libertarians, especially the Libertarian party, is their seeming distaste for pragmatism. They nominate a guy who has successfully implemented his ideas and is making a convincing case for people to take the Libertarian party seriously and this interviewer wastes his time quizzing him on esoteric authors.

 

 

Exactly, the ideological "purity" that many libertarians want in a feasible candidate will NEVER HAPPEN. I consider myself to be much more pragmatic than many of my libertarian brethren, meaning I understand that the purity of the platform may need to be somewhat sacrificed for success if we want ANY of our ideas to actually be implemented for the betterment of the country. The all or nothing approach is crippling Washington now and will cripple the libertarian party if we ever want it to have any true relevance.

Exactly, the ideological "purity" that many libertarians want in a feasible candidate will NEVER HAPPEN. I consider myself to be much more pragmatic than many of my libertarian brethren, meaning I understand that the purity of the platform may need to be somewhat sacrificed for success if we want ANY of our ideas to actually be implemented for the betterment of the country. The all or nothing approach is crippling Washington now and will cripple the libertarian party if we ever want it to have any true relevance.

 

Well stated, as was Habib's. Pragmatism has to start ruling the day in DC (and in state capitols).

Exactly, the ideological "purity" that many libertarians want in a feasible candidate will NEVER HAPPEN. I consider myself to be much more pragmatic than many of my libertarian brethren, meaning I understand that the purity of the platform may need to be somewhat sacrificed for success if we want ANY of our ideas to actually be implemented for the betterment of the country. The all or nothing approach is crippling Washington now and will cripple the libertarian party if we ever want it to have any true relevance.

 

Of course, this country was founded through compromise. Relieving the market from a central bank has less to do with ideology and more to do with the debilitative policies it imposes.

 

Spending is crippling Washington...we have a one party system. They're called big government. There is a Republican branch that likes war, deficits and assaulting civil liberties. There is a Democratic branch that likes welfare, taxes and assaulting commercial liberties.

Of course, this country was founded through compromise. Relieving the market from a central bank has less to do with ideology and more to do with the debilitative policies it imposes.

 

Spending is crippling Washington...we have a one party system. They're called big government. There is a Republican branch that likes war, deficits and assaulting civil liberties. There is a Democratic branch that likes welfare, taxes and assaulting commercial liberties.

 

Unless you are willing to advocate taking up arms, compromise and coalition building is the only way to get there.

Unless you are willing to advocate taking up arms, compromise and coalition building is the only way to get there.

 

To get where? A balanced budget? Not with the two parties currently in control. The only compromise we'll see from them is "how" to spend money as oppossed to cutting spending.

 

I don't know why this thread has drifted off-topic...Most Libertarians have read Henry Hazlet's 'Economics in One Lesson' (the most elementary), Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard's books. I would hope a public official who advocates Libertarianism would have a basic idea about these books considering how influential they have been throughout the 20th century for the Libertarian movement. It's ironic the candidate chosen to represent the Libertarian party was clueless when presented with a question regarding some of the most renowned Libertarian figures.

To get where? A balanced budget? Not with the two parties currently in control. The only compromise we'll see from them is "how" to spend money as oppossed to cutting spending.

 

I don't know why this thread has drifted off-topic...Most Libertarians have read Henry Hazlet's 'Economics in One Lesson' (the most elementary), Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard's books. I would hope a public official who advocates Libertarianism would have a basic idea about these books considering how influential they have been throughout the 20th century for the Libertarian movement. It's ironic the candidate chosen to represent the Libertarian party was clueless when presented with a question regarding some of the most renowned Libertarian figures.

 

 

Then how do you plan on Libertarians gaining any foothold in the federal government, because frankly the current strategy of the party doesn't have the kind of wide appeal they seem to think it does. There are more libertarians in the younger generation than previous ones and maybe one day an ideologically pure one will make some noise. For now however they need to work on the message.

 

For what it's worth when I think of the iconic libertarian figure I think of Ayn Rand.

Then how do you plan on Libertarians gaining any foothold in the federal government, because frankly the current strategy of the party doesn't have the kind of wide appeal they seem to think it does. There are more libertarians in the younger generation than previous ones and maybe one day an ideologically pure one will make some noise. For now however they need to work on the message.

 

For what it's worth when I think of the iconic libertarian figure I think of Ayn Rand.

 

Take a look at what is currently happening in the Republican party. They're in the midst of a civil war. Yes, Ron Paul quit campaigning (spending money) and the media stated he dropped out (when has the media considered him in the race? food for thought) but "constitutional conservatives" (same as Libertarian, different rhetoric) are taking over state conventions. The Liberty movement (Ron Paul supporters) is sweeping delegates across the U.S. in hopes of changing party platform at the National Convention this coming fall. Personally, I don't think Libertarian's should call themselves a "party" but Libertarians are gaining foothold in the Republican party. This is an important step and worth noting because the idea of liberty is spreading and gaining appeal.

 

I can't speak for the Libertarian party, itself. I'm not a member. Like I previously stated, I consider myself to be a constitutional conservative. The mere thought of Libertarian turns most people off because they think we're going "back in time" or "radical." I truely believe within the next 10-15 years the Neo-cons and modern-day republicans will be cast out and replaced with "constitutional conservatives."

 

I love Ayn Rand. :ylsuper:

To get where? A balanced budget? Not with the two parties currently in control. The only compromise we'll see from them is "how" to spend money as oppossed to cutting spending.

 

I don't know why this thread has drifted off-topic...Most Libertarians have read Henry Hazlet's 'Economics in One Lesson' (the most elementary), Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard's books. I would hope a public official who advocates Libertarianism would have a basic idea about these books considering how influential they have been throughout the 20th century for the Libertarian movement. It's ironic the candidate chosen to represent the Libertarian party was clueless when presented with a question regarding some of the most renowned Libertarian figures.

 

As far as I'm concerned this thread is still on topic.

 

I disagree with your premise.

 

I believe, blindly as it may seem, that the majority of the party, and those who follow Paul as well, are more concerned with results that lead to the desired end than rigid adherence to ideology. Both Paul and Johnson propose methods to work with Congress to balance the budget and oversee, or eliminate the Fed. Both propose starting that process by having the Treasury audit the Reserve. A pragmatic solution that leads toward the desired result. It's a start. It's extremely farther along than any main stream party candidate is proposing, less Paul.

 

I am a registered Libertarian. In my opinion, how GJ handled the interview and his lack of preparation for it, did more damage to him in the eyes of the rank and file of the membership than his reading list. When I joined the party, no where did I see a list of required reading. I submit that the majority of those following Ron Paul would not know Ludwig von Mises from Ludwig von Beethoven.

As far as I'm concerned this thread is still on topic.

 

I disagree with your premise.

 

I believe, blindly as it may seem, that the majority of the party, and those who follow Paul as well, are more concerned with results that lead to the desired end than rigid adherence to ideology. Both Paul and Johnson propose methods to work with Congress to balance the budget and oversee, or eliminate the Fed. Both propose starting that process by having the Treasury audit the Reserve. A pragmatic solution that leads toward the desired result. It's a start. It's extremely farther along than any main stream party candidate is proposing, less Paul.

 

I am a registered Libertarian. In my opinion, how GJ handled the interview and his lack of preparation for it, did more damage to him in the eyes of the rank and file of the membership than his reading list. When I joined the party, no where did I see a list of required reading. I submit that the majority of those following Ron Paul would not know Ludwig von Mises from Ludwig von Beethoven.

 

You're not running for POTUS either...

You're not running for POTUS either...

 

No, but I and Libertarians of my ilk are looking to vote for one. Point is that it is my belief that he will lose less members over his lack of adherence to the dogma of the econ hardcores than you ascertain.