$20.00
$30.00
$5.00
$15.00
Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
51 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: bad news for libertarians rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: #NoTrueLibertarian [+] [View All]
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Gary Johnson doesn't agree with the idea that freedom to discriminate is a good thing:

Quote:
Do you think New Mexico was right to fine the photographer for not photographing the gay wedding?

Look. Here's the issue. You've narrowly defined this. But if we allow for discrimination — if we pass a law that allows for discrimination on the basis of religion — literally, we're gonna open up a can of worms when it come stop discrimination of all forms, starting with Muslims … who knows. You're narrowly looking at a situation where if you broaden that, I just tell you — on the basis of religious freedom, being able to discriminate — something that is currently not allowed — discrimination will exist in places we never dreamed of.

Can the current federal RFRA be applied to protect things like the wedding photographer and the Little Sisters of the Poor?

The problem is I don't think you can cut out a little chunk there. I think what you're going to end up doing is open up a plethora of discrimination that you never dreamed could even exist. And it'll start with Muslims.

In a year when conservatives are being turned off from Donald Trump, do you worry that you're turning off conservatives who might come to the Libertarian Party?

It's the right message, and I'm sideways with the Libertarian Party on this.... My crystal ball is you are going to get discriminated against by somebody because it's against their religion. Somehow you have offended their religion because you've walked in and you're denied service. You.

You think it's the federal government's job to prevent—

Discrimination. Yes.

In all cases?

Yes, yes, in all cases. Yes. And you're using an example that seems to go outside the bounds of common sense. But man, now you're back to public policy.

And it's kind of like the death penalty. Do I favor the death penalty? Theoretically I do, but when you realize that there's a 4 percent error rate, you end up putting guilty people to death.

I think this is analogous to hate crime. Convict me on the act of throwing a rock through somebody's window. But if you're going to convict me on my motivation for doing that, now you're back to religious freedom. I mean under the guise of religious freedom, anybody can do anything. Back to Mormonism [ed.: Johnson explained this comment later]. Why shouldn't somebody be able to shoot somebody else because their freedom of religion says that God has spoken to them and that they can shoot somebody dead.

That doesn't seem like the distinction that a libertarian typically makes. Shooting is an initiation of force, versus deciding what ceremonies to participate in.

Well, they bring out this issue, which I realize it has happened. But the objective here is to say that discrimination is not allowed for by business... I just see religious freedom, as a category, as just being a black hole.
13 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I see you...
United States
Avon
Ohio
flag msg tools
"I made a promise on the grave of my parents...
badge
...that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. "
mbmbmbmbmb
Good news for me since I agree with him on this.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
Pretty good reasoning for a pothead laugh
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
Quote:
literally, we're gonna open up a can of worms

OK, that's weird.
27 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jage
United States
Greensboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
Gary Johnson doesn't agree with the idea that freedom to discriminate is a good thing:

Quote:
Do you think New Mexico was right to fine the photographer for not photographing the gay wedding?

Look. Here's the issue. You've narrowly defined this. But if we allow for discrimination — if we pass a law that allows for discrimination on the basis of religion — literally, we're gonna open up a can of worms when it come stop discrimination of all forms, starting with Muslims … who knows. You're narrowly looking at a situation where if you broaden that, I just tell you — on the basis of religious freedom, being able to discriminate — something that is currently not allowed — discrimination will exist in places we never dreamed of.

Can the current federal RFRA be applied to protect things like the wedding photographer and the Little Sisters of the Poor?

The problem is I don't think you can cut out a little chunk there. I think what you're going to end up doing is open up a plethora of discrimination that you never dreamed could even exist. And it'll start with Muslims.

In a year when conservatives are being turned off from Donald Trump, do you worry that you're turning off conservatives who might come to the Libertarian Party?

It's the right message, and I'm sideways with the Libertarian Party on this.... My crystal ball is you are going to get discriminated against by somebody because it's against their religion. Somehow you have offended their religion because you've walked in and you're denied service. You.

You think it's the federal government's job to prevent—

Discrimination. Yes.

In all cases?

Yes, yes, in all cases. Yes. And you're using an example that seems to go outside the bounds of common sense. But man, now you're back to public policy.

And it's kind of like the death penalty. Do I favor the death penalty? Theoretically I do, but when you realize that there's a 4 percent error rate, you end up putting guilty people to death.

I think this is analogous to hate crime. Convict me on the act of throwing a rock through somebody's window. But if you're going to convict me on my motivation for doing that, now you're back to religious freedom. I mean under the guise of religious freedom, anybody can do anything. Back to Mormonism [ed.: Johnson explained this comment later]. Why shouldn't somebody be able to shoot somebody else because their freedom of religion says that God has spoken to them and that they can shoot somebody dead.

That doesn't seem like the distinction that a libertarian typically makes. Shooting is an initiation of force, versus deciding what ceremonies to participate in.

Well, they bring out this issue, which I realize it has happened. But the objective here is to say that discrimination is not allowed for by business... I just see religious freedom, as a category, as just being a black hole.


This isn't new, he stated as much back in the Libertarian "debate"
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
mbmbmbmbmb
Poor Johnson's a LINO. (Though he's right on this.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jage
United States
Greensboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
Poor Johnson's a LINO. (Though he's right on this.)


Or just a moderate. He was a Republican governor.

I think all people have to support candidates that don't reflect 100% of their views. I don't know why Libertarians would be different (or should be).
2 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Look. Here's the issue. You've narrowly defined this. But if we allow for discrimination — if we pass a law that allows for discrimination on the basis of religion — literally, we're gonna open up a can of worms when it come stop discrimination of all forms, starting with Muslims … who knows. You're narrowly looking at a situation where if you broaden that, I just tell you — on the basis of religious freedom, being able to discriminate — something that is currently not allowed — discrimination will exist in places we never dreamed of.

The problem is I don't think you can cut out a little chunk there. I think what you're going to end up doing is open up a plethora of discrimination that you never dreamed could even exist. And it'll start with Muslims.


Good on him. This may be the first time I've heard any politician come up with this (the correct) answer in public. I'll consider him in 2020 or 2024. He's too late of starter to risk on Trump squeaking in.



6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
mbmbmb
Why is this "bad news for libertarians?"

GJ has already been beaten about the head and neck regarding his supposed transgressions against libertarian purity.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
mbmbmbmbmb
jageroxorz wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
Poor Johnson's a LINO. (Though he's right on this.)


Or just a moderate. He was a Republican governor.

I think all people have to support candidates that don't reflect 100% of their views. I don't know why Libertarians would be different (or should be).


Yeah, I know about Johnson's career. It was a joke - he got a lot of crap at the Libertarian convention for views like "yes, requiring drivers licenses is reasonable".
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Brown
United States
North Adams
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
kuhrusty wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
Quote:
literally, we're gonna open up a can of worms

OK, that's weird.

He's a third party candidate. Nobody likes him, everybody hates him.
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Old news.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad N
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
Unique titles I've played in 2017
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
Yeah, I know about Johnson's career. It was a joke - he got a lot of crap at the Libertarian convention for views like "yes, requiring drivers licenses is reasonable".

This is why I don't identify myself as a "Libertarian" even though I think I think many aspects of a libertarian viewpoint are wise. I don't identify with any particular political group for that matter. The problem with all of the parties is that if you don't follow the line on certain issues then you aren't accepted, regardless of how reasonable your position. This is just an example of that with the Libertarian party. In my opinion, each party has it's own ridiculous points of view that a candidate cannot disagree with and win... Trump is probably the closest thing to a candidate who has bucked that trend, but he's just an idiot so it hasn't helped.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
No one is really a true libertarian anyway. And most people never find 100% agreement with a candidate on all subjects.
8 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vincent Perry
United States
La Jolla
California
flag msg tools
Woot!
badge
I have overtext!
mbmbmbmbmb
The idea is that libertarians SHOULD agree that it is not the role of the state to force someone to provide a good or service to someone else. It's rather like a Democrat who doesn't believe that it is the role of the state to provide a safety net for the less fortunate. Yes, you could argue that a political party is not monolith and that there is room for different ideas and flavors of belief, but at some point, when you oppose a tenet so fundamental, it is fair to say that, philosophically, that label does not apply to you.

Gary Johnson is not a libertarian (believer in a minimal state). He is a Libertarian (member of the political party). He is a social liberal, fiscal conservative. He does not seem particularly educated in libertarian philosophy, and I doubt that he would be able to justify his position based on libertarian principles. For example, he seems to be overlooking the "can of worms" you open when you give the state the authority to force A to involuntarily serve B.
3 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
Shaman
mbmbmb
jageroxorz wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
Poor Johnson's a LINO. (Though he's right on this.)


Or just a moderate. He was a Republican governor.

I think all people have to support candidates that don't reflect 100% of their views. I don't know why Libertarians would be different (or should be).


Not sure why anyone should be so shocked either. It's just another in a longish line of mainstream people opportunistically taking over fringe parties for presidential attention. The libertarians specifically have had this happen a ton of times over their history (at least as I remember it).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
mbmbmb
windsagio wrote:
Not sure why anyone should be so shocked either. It's just another in a longish line of mainstream people opportunistically taking over fringe parties for presidential attention. The libertarians specifically have had this happen a ton of times over their history (at least as I remember it).
Ehhhh.... in GJ's case his policy positions ended up meshing better with the Libertarian party than with the GOP, so it's a far more honest fit.

Contrast that with Bob Barr, former Republican drug-warrior, same-sex-marriage opponent, and supporter of both the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act who managed to finagle his way into being the 2008 Libertarian party presidential nominee. Barr spent all of five minutes wearing the guise of a Libertarian then tried to run back to the Republican party, then told us all to vote for Gingrich instead of Ron Paul in 2012.

So while 3rd parties can be fertile ground for imposters (Trump as a Reform Party Candidate? No one remembers that in 2000 when Pat Buchanan won,) I don't consider GJ to be part of that ilk. You may not agree with his positions, but you can't say they aren't his honest opinions.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Can we not taunt the Never Trumps about their options?

I feel like that can only end badly for all of us.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
theodorelogan wrote:
The idea is that libertarians SHOULD agree that it is not the role of the state to force someone to provide a good or service to someone else. It's rather like a Democrat who doesn't believe that it is the role of the state to provide a safety net for the less fortunate. Yes, you could argue that a political party is not monolith and that there is room for different ideas and flavors of belief, but at some point, when you oppose a tenet so fundamental, it is fair to say that, philosophically, that label does not apply to you.

Gary Johnson is not a libertarian (believer in a minimal state). He is a Libertarian (member of the political party). He is a social liberal, fiscal conservative. He does not seem particularly educated in libertarian philosophy, and I doubt that he would be able to justify his position based on libertarian principles. For example, he seems to be overlooking the "can of worms" you open when you give the state the authority to force A to involuntarily serve B.


And that's why he is one of the best and strongest libertarian candidates I've seen in my voting lifetime (37 years).

He might actually have a form of libertarian government that can function in a society with 350 million citizens.

Because my vote in Texas for Hillary literally won't matter, it's very likely I'll be voting for Johnson. If Johnson had any chance of winning, I'd be voting for him anyway.

I've watched him under pressure and on Bill Maher. Like Bernie Sanders, he's something different. A quasi-outsider who's not a nutjob or obvious loser.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vincent Perry
United States
La Jolla
California
flag msg tools
Woot!
badge
I have overtext!
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
theodorelogan wrote:
The idea is that libertarians SHOULD agree that it is not the role of the state to force someone to provide a good or service to someone else. It's rather like a Democrat who doesn't believe that it is the role of the state to provide a safety net for the less fortunate. Yes, you could argue that a political party is not monolith and that there is room for different ideas and flavors of belief, but at some point, when you oppose a tenet so fundamental, it is fair to say that, philosophically, that label does not apply to you.

Gary Johnson is not a libertarian (believer in a minimal state). He is a Libertarian (member of the political party). He is a social liberal, fiscal conservative. He does not seem particularly educated in libertarian philosophy, and I doubt that he would be able to justify his position based on libertarian principles. For example, he seems to be overlooking the "can of worms" you open when you give the state the authority to force A to involuntarily serve B.


And that's why he is one of the best and strongest libertarian candidates I've seen in my voting lifetime (37 years).


He wouldn't have a form of libertarian government. That's my point. His government would be a combination of the "best ideas" (his words) from Democrats and Republicans. That is not a libertarian government. This may well be better than what we have now, but it isn't libertarian
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
mbmbmbmbmb
People that call themselves libertarians go from people that want to discriminate and close borders from those that think that borders are tyranny. In the middle we have those that think it's all about being able to have all the drugs you want, those that want freedom to scam, and those that want to legally own nuclear warheads.

There's no libertarian platform.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chapel
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
"32 inches of Plexi....for your pleasure"
mbmbmbmbmb
He's a legal weed libertarian. There are different levels of libertarians, like there are different levels of Democrats and Republicans. I mean you could say Trump isn't very Republican, Sanders wasn't very Democrat, and Johnson isn't very Libertarian. All three are outsiders in their consecutive parties, but 2 out of 3 won the day.

If it makes you feel better though, call him a 3rd party independent.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Doherty
United States
McKinney
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
Pretty good reasoning for a pothead laugh


Other than him saying the opposite of what he meant here:

Quote:
And it's kind of like the death penalty. Do I favor the death penalty? Theoretically I do, but when you realize that there's a 4 percent error rate, you end up putting guilty people to death.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
theodorelogan wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
theodorelogan wrote:
The idea is that libertarians SHOULD agree that it is not the role of the state to force someone to provide a good or service to someone else. It's rather like a Democrat who doesn't believe that it is the role of the state to provide a safety net for the less fortunate. Yes, you could argue that a political party is not monolith and that there is room for different ideas and flavors of belief, but at some point, when you oppose a tenet so fundamental, it is fair to say that, philosophically, that label does not apply to you.

Gary Johnson is not a libertarian (believer in a minimal state). He is a Libertarian (member of the political party). He is a social liberal, fiscal conservative. He does not seem particularly educated in libertarian philosophy, and I doubt that he would be able to justify his position based on libertarian principles. For example, he seems to be overlooking the "can of worms" you open when you give the state the authority to force A to involuntarily serve B.


And that's why he is one of the best and strongest libertarian candidates I've seen in my voting lifetime (37 years).


He wouldn't have a form of libertarian government. That's my point. His government would be a combination of the "best ideas" (his words) from Democrats and Republicans. That is not a libertarian government. This may well be better than what we have now, but it isn't libertarian


He would favor libertarian polices more than any other president.. ever.

Given our structure (50 states, entire government never up for election in the same election, many libertarians are loons not libertarians, libertarian government actually requiring a very strong government to work, over 50% of the population opposed to libertarian principles (either on social or legal reasons)), you are never going to see a libertarian government. You might get to 10% of representatives and senators and maybe a president if the republicans completely melt down AND the libertarians field quality candidates like Johnson who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

I was a libertarian for 16 years. I know just how unrealistic it is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Just embrace the steady pace we hurtle down the road to serfdom! Be pragmatic!


The most effective libertarian tactics are nullification and secession. There will not be a libertarian takeover of Mordor.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.