the only argument I have with that is how Johnson, if elected, would be far less interested in how he could get the country into more wars, more corporate welfare, more regulatory activity and more spending in general. His focus is and has been on presenting a basically pro-liberty, pro-choice approach to society despite the fumbling efforts to say that without "scaring the horses."
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Has Johnson or any other lib candidate ever advocated or brought up secession from the fed as one of their platforms? Has he told people to gain independence from the system and not to rely on politicians as leaders? If not, I fear that voting for him is just changing the deck chairs. There won't be any real change, whatever he does will be short lived in a few years, and it will require an extraordinary amount of time, resources, and concessions to Libertarian philosophy to even get him into office.
Do you want to elect someone under a Libertarian banner who would think it to be acceptable to force a Jew to bake a cake for a Nazi? Try defending Libertarianism after he's elected and you'll find yourself making a lot of excuses.
Libertarianism tends to mean whatever people want it to mean, originally it used to be a way of identifying oneself as a socialist in a period where capitalist Liberals advocated for economic freedom. Simply put there is no difference between the two terms, they both mean freedom. Yet peoples perception of them is the only thing which changes. Today the roles have reversed again, Liberalism is seen as a stigmatic problem and Libertarian is the new popular religion. We've had it before, it's nothing new, so don't be surprised when millions of communists and socialists revert back to it pretending to have changed.