- Civil Liberties
What's to say here? It’s easy to push the “socially liberal” line; many are. Really, I use this point to demonstrate that if "liberals", the modern, leftist version of the word, would apply their liberties given in the social-realm of things economically, then they would be libertarians. If government isn’t allowed in the bedroom, it isn’t allowed in the business. If there should be free exchange in love and sex, there should be free exchange in economic goods. It’s no different, both matters are private. There is no more economic right of the State to violate your right to free, voluntary trade than there is a more-moral one for them to tell you who you’re able to be in a romantic relationship with. Both are exchanges, and it matters not whether this is the trade of property titles (economic) or psychic or other (a connection), etc. To find common ground, we should illustrate to socialist-feminists and the like that would consider a woman to “have a right to own her own body” that they likely don’t really believe this if not extending this right to resisting taxation, to which they would see that the government’s rights trumps the woman’s, and she should be aggressed against by men with guns if she doesn’t comply with their demands for her property.
There’s a few points where he goes wrong. Maybe the example that the “Democrat who wants the government to look through your cell phone” was used instead of your wallet, since Johnson very much still believes government has a right to go through people’s wallets.
Again, here is hoping that government could ever serve its alleged “purpose” of getting
“back into the business of protecting your freedoms.”
Following this up with seeing the reality, that
“those in power today are steadily eroding the personal freedoms that our
government was established to protect.”
Well, I can’t address here that the Constitution is not entirely a document of liberty, and that interests were always in government to gain power over the people, but it’s true what he says; I just don’t believe it could be any other way. Such is the nature of government: to limit liberty. We must call his bluff that he
“..believes that people, not politicians, should make choices in their personal lives.”
Surely he doesn’t believe we should be free to voluntarily choose who our defense provider is, overall believing in the idea of the State and taxation.
- Support our Veterans
The military, always a soft-spot for any nationalist, is an area where he looks quite statist. This would contradict what was just mentioned, that we should be free to arm ourselves and decide our own provisions of security:
"Gary Johnson believes strongly that we have a solemn obligation to
honor those who have fought for us, sacrificed for us, and put their lives
on the line to defend our great nation."
There are many problems with this statement. To reiterate, it rests on the faulty premise that "we" are the government; secondly, government is treated as an actual protector, rather than running a protection racket where it taxes people claiming to protect them from that very theft; lastly, to do the non-libertarian thing and speak of a positive obligation to another person, against the negative, natural rights philosophy of libertarianism grounded in the non-aggression principle. Like the national debt, there is no real obligation here. I should not continue to be extorted because some "government" made a promise to veterans that it will be capable of indefinite theft of the people to pay them for "serving" "their" "country." Anyone signing up for the military should expect the government to fail them.
These "promises", then, of government were made under the assumption that it is conducting a legitimate, ever-lasting robbery upon the people and can always pay out. But If someone made a promise to give me what wasn’t theirs, this would be an illegitimate transaction; they cannot fulfill its terms. Contracts concerning property that isn't yours are invalid, i.e., the "social contract”, or the idea that “the nation” has gone collectively into debt. Does he really think government can or should keep its promises? What about Social Security, etc? The libertarian wants to end the theft and redistribution immediately, even from those fooled into thinking these offers were sustainable. Sadly, we should tell these people "sorry", and end the slavery of forcing the "protected" (the taxpayers) to do something (pay taxes) that is worse than what the "protectors" (the military) supposedly protect against.
It's my view, I suppose, that if there must be a socialist military at all, then it should at least come with no promises; it should at least not, as it is, be essentially a welfare and jobs program coming with generous luxuries for joining. They should perhaps sign a contract reading: "We'll pay you $X hr; take care of your health while you're with us; and if you get injured or die, we're sorry, but we won’t be giving any compensation to you or your family." (Here we’ll ignore the problem of government's always-arbitrary decrees, that there is no market-mechanism such as profit-and-loss which the private business has to determine wages, or the proper amount of resources to allocate to protection). Gary would disagree:
" our obligation to support those who have served does not end when they sign their discharge papers."
I'm unsure of active-duty military, and do feel many of them could justify shooting us flying the American banner, "just doing their job", but I do think veterans stand as a valid threat to government nonetheless. While some never dropped their ultra-statism, many have came around to see it just for what it is.
I find it a little more cringe-worthy toward the end, likening the State to any religion, making sacrifices to fulfill its ends, saying that he "recognizes and appreciates those sacrifices." Sacrifices where? In Iraq? Afghanistan? And for what gain: does any Muslim tax me fifty-percent, which "my" government absolutely does? What this government does to us is indefinitely worse than what it's said would be the case without it. To me, the military isn’t the last thing we libertarians should cling onto as a needed monopoly of the State; it’s the worst, most-dangerous, and last thing we want to give up and make centralized.
So much for proclaiming to be a
“A strong believer in the power of competition and the marketplace…”
Johnson says that we have a
“moral contract with those who have served [to give them our property].”
- Foreign Policy and National Defense
If he thinks that
“The objective of both our foreign policy and our military should…[be]
to protect us from harm and to allow us to exercise our freedoms..”
but that it isn’t our freedom to exercise who it is that provides this protection, then Gary Johnson is not a voluntaryist, and true libertarianism rests on voluntarism.
Even if he does support the collectivist notion of a "common defense", laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution, he at least expresses that its use should become defensive, whereas they may as well change the Pentagon’s official name to the Department of Offense as of now. He sees that it’s all wasteful, and really he should know that privatizing defense would be the means of avoiding waste in resources, which is what makes us less safe; but it's doubtful he's ever pondered such an idea. In fact, seeing that
"We need to build a strong military."
Who is “we”, and “how strong” should be it, the libertarian would ask. Not undergoing the test of profit and loss as does a private business in the market, how much resources should be devoted to protection? We cannot know. One thing that is for sure, under a socialist protection system, the people become less-safe while being forced to cough-up even more resources for it. He gave a nod to this, saying
“...our meddling in the affairs of other nations has made us less safe.”
When the police fail to do “their job”, when crime is up, they just ask for more money rather than suffer a loss and go out of business. Johnson applies none of this market-analysis that he may very well understand to the socialist institutions he clings on to as necessary, like the military monopoly.
Perhaps a hopeful element of this campaign is, proportionately to the rest of the population, overwhelmingly high among members of the military; a whopping 39% according to his homepage. If the military is finally tired of wars, then this is a great thing. Against the war-hawks Clinton and Trump, who would love to continue to carry out the status-quo of dominating the world with our military, Johnson is denouncing American Imperialism. Many of major libertarians have taken the position that we should be most concerned with dangerous, reckless foreign policies of the government, as Trump and Clinton are sure to pursue. I tend to agree, as the more resources devoted to war, and associated laws that come with them, cause us to lose domestic liberties rapidly.
If anything though in this section, he’s good on ending American Imperialism, which likely explains the reason for his huge support among the military, who do not want to be dropped off into war, gung-ho as they may be:
“...we should not use our military strength to try to solve the world’s
problems. Doing so creates new enemies and perpetual war.”
- Immigration
This is a difficult section here: Immigration is a contentious issue even among libertarians, and I have no definitive answer myself. The clear, obvious answer as one might thing is not "open the borders." There are serious objections to this indeed. In a perfect world – one where [property] rights are fully enforced and protected, which we contend is achieved in statelessness – all property is private, and people are free to associate and disassociate with whoever they wish. No one is forced to do business with or befriend anyone they don't want to; no one is prevented from doing business with whoever they want to.
I myself see merit to both arguments in libertarianism, what is something of being in between (1) more-or-less free migration and that (2) not protecting the borders and allowing immigration is “forced integration” that assists with property rights violations, being that the State does exist. I haven’t done enough work myself in thinking on this issue, but do somewhat understand the arguments. I'm inclined to "pro-immigration", although that alone cannot say what it encompasses. The “welfare problem” of immigration is a problem of there being welfare and “public property”, and not of immigration. Also, there is much unowned land left to be homesteaded. There is certainly forced exclusion, too, where we’re not free to invite, hire, or trade with Mexicans on our property.
I’m no expert on immigration, but I do see a problem, however, with just letting anyone and everyone in at this point, especially if this is state-funded migration; the property-rights violating act of subsidizing the travel, etc., of refugees and such. Generally, my position is, if they can make it here, let them in. My authority extends only over what is mine, unlike the State whose believed jurisdiction is the entirety of a piece of land it claims as theirs.
He doesn’t say much here, except unfortunately thinking we need ways for "incentivizing non-citizens to pay their taxes." This "pay your fair-share" argument is purely socialist, described above. This is why, if not paying taxes is not the same thing as being subsidized, as Austrian economists believe, then I think there's a decent objection to the Hoppean argument that since there is public property, immigrants should not be allowed to consume it. Indeed, Dr. Walter Block makes a similar point in his rejoinder to Hoppe, that what difference is it between a foreigner being able to use the roads and a child born domestically who never asked for permission to come in, or what is to make anyone think private roads would exclude more people than the present roads? My view, let anyone and everyone out of paying taxes, including churches, and anyone else not currently under government's radar, such as yard-sales, Craigslist exchanges, lemonade stands, etc. We don’t want to give money to the State, and nor should we wish foreigners did.
Difficult, I know, since those who it was stolen from do have the better claim to the property; I can’t say a crowd of Mexicans have a right to come stay in the park by my house. But what difference is a newborn or a Coloradan traveling through Texas than a Mexican? There’s many problems here in immigration which don’t have easy answers. To be clear, all property should be private; there should be no such thing as "public property" outside of voluntary arrangements of such. The only way someone should have access to private property in the libertarian view, to where they are not an aggressor or an invader, is to be invited onto it.
- Criminal Justice Reform
Johnson is pretty good here, again, although he’s not harsh enough. I don’t think if he were elected that local police departments are going to suddenly stop harassing and ticketing people and running them through their extortion (courts) rackets, putting them in jails for petty things, and beating people up across the country for not respecting them.
He acknowledges that
“the politicians have “criminalized” far too many aspects of people’s personal lives.”
at least seeing (whether he's consistently applied this), unlike the socialists, that whatever legislation is created will be backed up by guns and cages, so these "laws" better represent real rights violations, what we call "crimes."
The motto of libertarians is, I believe, correct: ‘“No victim, no crime.” There is no crime when no one’s rights were violated, such as using drugs, paying for sex, gambling, , which incidentally have turned into “criminal”-like operations being that they have been pushed into the “black market”, taken up by street gangs, the mafia, etc., where it’s even harder to find protection and have legal recourse in these areas when one becomes a victim of robbery.
He says that
“The failed War on Drugs is, of course, the greatest example.”
By my problem is that Gary doesn't really want to end the War on Drugs. He’s not for the full legalization of all non-crimes, i.e., when there’s no victim.
Again, he doesn’t care for the involuntary relationship we have with the police, who we’re forced to fund, referring to them as being the same as when we deal with a private business, saying that all these issues have caused
“a seriously frayed relationship between law enforcement and those they serve.”
It was never about “our” protection; the police are to protect the State, and enforce all of its laws. Johnson seems to make the non-libertarian conflation of legislation with law, though, seeing a need for these criminals in government who violate the very rights he assumes they protect.
Since libertarians believe, necessarily, that the only crimes are violations of property rights, it's unfortunate we can't get a promise to release all the "non-violent offenders" from cages; or clemency for others, pardons, etc. I want a President that says “i’m going to release everyone from prison and jail who committed no crimes according to libertarian law.” We won’t get this from him. Moreover, I don’t see a need for prisons whatever. I think aggressors should be “free”, more or less, to work and to pay restitution to their victims, securing them only if they try to get out of this or violate other terms of their freedom; a freedom which has been temporarily lost since they have violated someone else’s rights.
- Internet Freedom
Nothing much to say here. He's good: The surveillance-state is a problem. In fact, I am twice a near-victim of it, being investigated in person over freedom-loving things I have said on Facebook and Twitter, by Homeland Security via the Secret Service and the FBI respectively. Both interactions contained threats of "do you know what we could do to you if we wanted, if we really thought you were serious?” I did know, and always understood that's how government operates: pointing guns, putting you in a cage for disagreeing with them. I know, that in our post-911, Orwellian world that it’s unsafe to exercise your freedom of speech. You can be damn sure the government is interested in squashing dissent.
The internet is certainly a threat to the State. I believe Twitter alone played a part in triggering what came to be known as the Arab Spring, when governments across the middle east were toppled. I have had multiple people personally come to me online saying that I have greatly influenced the way they see things, and the spread of ideas is what matters. It is not a criticism of our ineffectiveness to say “oh, sure, you’re smashing the state one post at a time.” I’d say, yes; that’s how it’s done. I can’t say I would be, ideologically, where I am today were it not for the vast amounts of information I have discovered and uncovered on the internet; by having my own viewpoints challenged by others; and being able to quickly access knowledge.
Gary gives this a nod:
“This is because the Internet gives everyday people the tools of progress
by putting information, technology, and communities at our fingertips.”
It is truly thanks to organizations like the Mises Institute that we’re given an endless supply of free information on liberty. Social media is where we can spread these ideas to our friends and challenge the way they think. It has been essential in my mind to the rise of the liberty movement that we can make such connections, feeling less-alone than we otherwise would be, possibly letting go of our ideas once feeling outnumbered. I know that it was when I discovered libertarianism, the philosophy, that what I always knew to be true was finally validated. It wasn’t just me. There were people in academia, scholars, that promoted these views; who had delved into the hard array of topics that is the focus of ethics and economics. The internet must be free.
- The Environment
To restate the libertarian position, all government should do if it must exist at all (and this is to imagine that it’s capable of doing this, and not the property violator that it is) is to enforce property rights and contracts. Make no mistake, pollution is an invasion of property rights; this must be dealt with. Assuming no government, the statist is unable to see how there can be [common] law without legislation, believing “law” is what government does. At any rate, the right to non-aggression holds for pollution, and is thus morally defensible under libertarian law. Johnson apparently sees it differently:
“We need to stand firm to protect our environment for our
future generations, especially those designated areas of protection…
...the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable
environmental protections.”
He is calling for “public property”, against the libertarian desire that all property be private; he is also speaking of “the environment”, too, as a collective good, when the libertarian is against the idea of their being “public goods” the government must regulate. Brushing off that the State is the gang of criminals, that they are the aggressors being spoken of, it's said:
Governors Johnson and Weld believe strongly that the first responsibility
of government is to protect citizens from those who would do them harm,
whether it be a foreign aggressor, a criminal
Government only pretends to protect our rights. This isn’t what it does, and it never will be. As with private bankers inflating, who violate depositors property rights by doing so, there is no need for a central bank (analogy: the EPA) to resolve this problem, and as we see the central bank is the inflator, but all that’s needed is for government to enforce property rights; to declare the practice of fractional-reserve banking a fraud. The premise, as always, here, is that the government is the organization which does things to protect the people. Of course, as it always goes with bought-out government (the only kind you can have, I contend), if the air is made a public good, the polluters are just going to swoop in and gain the rights to pollute. These regulations work the same in every industry: what it’s said to protect is precisely what it goes: the Fed, inflates and protects the bank cartel; FDA, bans safer alternatives creating effective pharma-monopolies; etc., etc., ad infinitum. Johnson seems to say it:
“Too often, when Washington, D.C. gets involved, the winners are
those with the political clout to write the rules of the game, and the
losers are the people and businesses actually trying to innovate.”
He also said there should be a fee (which he means a tax) for carbon emissions on climate change, which I think he has since rescinded. If so though, this “fee” he speaks of, calling it a market solution, is the idea of “cap and trade.” Again, maybe this is an improvement to present top-down government regulations, but it’s still nonetheless government management resources. There’s another word for this: communism. Either Johnson is a flat-out socialist at times, or he’s using this language to appeal to “the left”, to attract those who are abandoning Bernie Sanders.
“We need to stand firm to protect our environment for our future
generations, especially those designated areas of protection like our
National Parks.”
Let’s not forget who the largest polluter is, by the way.
One of the best essays on the subject, I believe, which answers a lot of the questions at stake, could be read to further one’s interest in the subject. The EPA is not the one who protects our property rights, but helps make sure we lose these rights. Today’s “environmentalists” are the ones pushing the socialist causes elsewhere in the economy who desire total “regulation” and control over the economy, who help steer us more toward a world government, even, where countries must comply with standards coming down from the UN. This, to be sure, would be the logical conclusion of the socialist: If the reason for the State (S) is that A and B can’t get along, then S1 and S2 are in a state of anarchy, and this needs to be settled by WG (world government) to oversee S1 and S2 as to not leave them ungoverned anymore. These people are bad. Green is the new Red.
- Education
Gary seems to still have a deep emotional connection to the public schooling system that bred him.
“Governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld believe nothing is more important
to our future as a country than educating our next generations.”
Since all value is subjective, who is Gary to say that education is of prime importance? Surely many people, all with varying aptitudes and ambitions, should just enter the “workforce” and begin learning their trade rather than going to higher-education or wasting their time being forced to attend the public school system. This is also a sort of typical socialist argument too, which assumes that intelligence is the most important, and that the children would be off in the coal mine if they weren’t in school. While it is a factor, what holds any intelligence back from being productive is access to capital. The U.S. is richer than other countries, and labor is comparatively more productive here for a Mexican than if that same labor were in Mexico, because of its accumulation of capital goods. It is not all about formal education.
He says that he’s
“worked tirelessly as governor to have a more substantive discussion
about the best way to provide a good education for our children.”
But again, “education” is not a “common good” as he speaks of it. So the idea that since “everyone benefits from it, therefore we should all be taxed” is not a libertarian one. He speaks of advocating
“a universally available program for school choice. Competition, he believes,
will make our public and private educational institutions better.”
but he’s obviously not for total privatization.
This is maybe the non-sequitur Milton Friedman-like mention that just because education has been declared a “right” doesn’t mean government should have a monopoly on providing it, but this nonetheless still assumes that it is a right, just offering choice (vouchers to shop for quasi-private options) rather than the sole government provider; complete freedom in education being off the table. If not for privatization, which is the libertarian option, he is at least for decentralization and ending the Federal Government’s role, saying he
“believes we should eliminate the federal Department of Education.”
This seems to be about as radical as Gary gets, calling for the end to a Department of government; although he also called to end the IRS, albeit suggesting the replacement of a consumption tax. It’s hard for me to know how serious Gary Johnson is, or what he could even accomplish once in office. He does promise to “sign legislation to eliminate any federal agency that they [Congress] present me”, but I just don’t see him presenting a radical libertarian agenda to the country or Congress to give America its needed changes as quickly as possible. Maybe he’s setting the stage for someone more libertarian to come along in the future. We’ll see.
- Abortion
I agree:
"Gov. Johnson feels strongly that women seeking to exercise their
legal right must not be subjected to prosecution or denied access to
health services by politicians in Washington, or anywhere else."
Maybe it's not so simple, but I have adopted the "evictionist" approach, that a fetus is a parasite and a woman has the right to reject it from her body. I haven't accepted that the NAP can be applied to the unborn, but believe, at this time, that the mother's rights trump the fetus's. Realize, many of these things are arbitrary even without government: when is conception? how many weeks of pregnancy until abortion becomes immoral? when is a child old enough to own themselves and consent? These issues aren't easy, that’s for sure. There is much debate within libertarianism of this issue, where no consensus has been reached, as well as serious philosophical objections to this as well, but I do happen to believe it's simple: a woman has the absolute right to own her own body, up to deciding to go back on carrying out a pregnancy. I’m comfortable, at this time, asserting that a woman has the right to choose; that abortion is a right.
This is another point of agreement in which we should try and capture the feminist-like types, who if radically in favor of a woman's right to an abortion, should be as much so in her right – and everyone's rights – to self-ownership, the anarchist's premise. Again, that if she has a right to self-ownership, then this should apply to her engagement in free trade of economic goods as much as it would be to evict a baby from her body. Feminists should be anarchists, in short.
- War on Drugs
In the libertarian view, a normal crime, defined by a clear violation of one's property rights, the victim (the property owner) is owed restitution by his aggressor; he who uses aggression against someone temporarily loses their rights by demonstrating that they don't respect another's; they forfeit their rights, for some payment period, to provide to their victims what is owed. But this is besides the point. We must, then, ask: Who is the victim of drug use, if it's a "crime?" It could be argued there are emotional “victims”: friends who suffered losses, family who have to deal with them, etc., but these are not victims in the sense that their rights were infringed. Let's assume for a moment that it is; doing something that harms no one but yourself is classified as prohibited under the legal structure; it's impermissible that someone do something that doesn't violate another's rights, as stands under the present statist-system. Well then, if "society" is the victim, what sense does it make to burn them twice as taxpayers to put this person in prison? I thought, if anything, drug users should be taxed to pay this entity "society" for the alleged harm it has caused them, and maybe it’s evenly distributed to the taxpayers as “victims” of the drug use; not that they be put in jail, free of charge to themselves.
To summarize the above, the libertarian is for the decriminalization of all drugs, not just ones that are socially acceptable to talk about. This is the road Johnson takes, though. The emphasis here is on marijuana, and only marijuana; mentioning it five times in this short piece. Although incomparable to Bernie Sanders, he's pushing the issue of "marijuana" as a now-necessary platform issue even of the Democrats, demanded by public opinion. Everyone knows libertarians love marijuana, right?
In a final line, they avoid being completely libertarian, stating that they
"do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal."
There's simply no way you can not support legalization of all drugs and be against the Drug War. If you're for drugs being illegal, according to government decree, then you're necessarily for force (law enforcement) being used against the people who have committed no crime. That means “we should use aggression against people to enforce the illegality of substances X, Y, and Z.” Although he says we need to "treat drug abuse as a health issue, not a crime", I don't believe he really means this. I think he considers other drugs, as he said, to be legally permissible for government to prohibit the possession and use of. At best, he’s possibly for taxpayer funded programs to deal with this and wants to reduce the outrageous amount of people imprisoned for drug related “offenses”,
“drug rehabilitation and harm-reduction programs result in a
more productive society than incarceration and arrests for drug use.”
So, he’s decent: On marijuana.
“Legalizing and regulating marijuana will save lives and make our
communities safer by eliminating crime and creating an industry
that can legitimately participate in America’s economy.”
But what needs to be “regulated” about marijuana? Is more revenue needed for the State? Should special licenses be handed out so few can be the producers and profit at higher-than-would-be prices? Marijuana should be a product, no different than anything else. There should be free-trade in drugs as much as their should be for food and shelter, two other heavily regulated industries.
Voters are unfortunately willing to latch onto people over a single issue that pertains to them, like marijuana, where I heard some say “I’m for Bernie Sanders because he’s for legalization.” It’s almost as if socialism is okay, so long as we can smoke joints. But there’s more to libertarianism than the freedom to use marijuana.
It looks like Johnson is being pushed for "political experience" only, having been the Governor of New Mexico. That he is not well-versed in libertarianism, but only a some guy who wandered haplessly into the Party smoking a joint one day and thought, "hey, these guys might like me." Who knows what will come of it all, but this is wobbly libertarian message being used by the campaign, which may produce good or bad. To speak for myself, I don't trust Gary Johnson, I don't trust political parties, and i'll never have anything to do with these people.