"Ron Paul successor" Gary Johnson to NH, mulls 2012

[selfrealizedexile]

Gary Johnson isn't philosophically rich enough to be "Ron Paul's successor." It's going to be either Rand Paul or, maybe even, Tom Woods. It's tough to know, maybe someone will come out of the shadows, but Gary just isn't philosophical enough. :/

[FRSFreeStateNow]

Gary Johnson to me is the future of the Libertarian Movement and the LP should be recruiting him and the Pauls to lead their party.

[selfrealizedexile]

@FRSFreeStateNow

The Libertarian Party is just a political bureaucracy.

[sapperzulu]

Gary Johnson, you need more experience.... 

[andrewsurtees]

Turns out GJ isn't quite as liberty-oriented as we thought. Ridley knows what I mean..

[honkycabbit]

@ lomocan you hit the nail on the head, these new candidates popping up including Herman Caine, Bachman and Johnson all have ties to some form of Neocons, they may seem to act like Ron Paul people but they're neocons in republican clothing! Oh and not to mention the Tea Party is practically hijacked.

RON PAUL 2012

[lomocan]

Ron Paul does NOT need a successor, not one associated with CFR, anyway.

My appeal to all the Ron Paul supporters, BEWARE, now since Paul's ideas of freedom, small gov, no wars, etc are picking up speed, many candidates will jump on RonPaul-bandwagon but ALWAYS check each of their backgrounds before endorsing them, don't be fooled by their words, remember Obama's "change"?

I'm SURE Ron Paul WILL run so DON'T endorse anyone who'll spilt his votes.

RON PAUL 2012.

[Jordan22473]

RP is not done. He dose not need a sucsessor. Gary is very legit , but RP Is a hero and the leader of the entire Libertarian movment.

[calimar28]

I'd like to see a Paul-Johnson ticket for 2012.

[rocksiphone]

Peter Schiff is running for Senate and he would support Bombing Iran's nukes if he believed or was told they had them. Peter is a great economist, but I do not support any attacks on foreign land. We were told Iraq had WMD which were never found. Bombing in Iran could cause a major war in the region.

If you are against War, can you comment on my video called:

Peter Schiff says Bomb Iran's Nukes

[utubehayter]

Agreed - Peter should have stayed out of politics and its not to late to back out. Either that, or he can rig his voting pattern to "NO" on everything - don't even think about what it is, whether it is a good idea or not - just vote no on everything.

[cdimmm]

What we need is a high ranking government official to advocate the end of the 24/7 military chemtrail operations.

[whoo689]

Gary Johnson should've switched to the LP as governor the day after his inauguration in NM. I'm sure THAT would've given liberty advocates a huge boost in getting higher office. ;)

[harryogre]

gratuitous public domain hotties!

You rock Dave.

[TheDemonPazuzu]

Our elections are and have been a dog and pony show for several years now, so such a run for office will be an exercise in futility.

[RidleyReport]

ron paul's was not.... I see the difference it made nearly every time I schedule an event. Because of him liberty event turnout is much higher, even many months after he dropped out.

[TheDemonPazuzu]

I genuinely wish you were correct and that I was wrong in that he and all pro-freedom candidates had a fair shake in our currently rigged elections.

[garyjohnson12]

Great video, Ridley! One correction though: when Gary says he supports a strong defense (as Ron Paul also says), he does not mean the current global empire. Gary supports pulling back overseas troops and bases. When he says he supports a strong defense abroad, he means going after those who perpetrate attacks on us, not pre-emptively striking countries who have not harmed us, or sitting around on bases in foreign lands where we have no enemies.

[ferrozm]

Gary Johnson would be good

[wpine]

Johnson and Ventura as Independents would be great. I am sure Johnson has made some switches since 98 .. as RP switched his opinion on capitol punishment (probably the only thing RP ever switched and that was for the better.

Happy to check into Johnson more - it is all about the isses and a non-war stance.

[wpine]

we deffinately need a non intervention foreign policy!

[MooseOfReason]

Ridley, can you ask Johnson about the 1998 bill he signed that tried to ban porn from the internet?

That's the only problem I have with him. I don't know if he expressed regret for that.

[intrepgun]

surprisingly, that bill doesn't bother me much. mostly because 99% of pornography on the internet is nothing but degradation and humiliation of women. if one enjoys watching that, well, there's something perhaps quite wrong with them.

other than that, i don't want a 'ron paul successor' at all. nor do i want ron paul. he may be slightly more in line with popular ideas, but it would end up being just about the same old song and dance under him. somewhat like jfk.

[Apptendo]

Fristly, you could argue that porn is degrading to everything Since Stated in Rule 34 of the internet says "If It Exists, There Is Porn of It. No Exceptions." and EVERYBODY looks at Porn.

[intrepgun]

well that was a foolish comment.

[MooseOfReason]

intrepgun, That's not the point. How would the bill be enforced? You'd have to shut the internet down to get rid of the porn.

[803honda]

"republican liberty caucus" lol

"republican liberty" is the equilivent of french enchiladas

[VendettaVV]

wat?! Gary Johnson as RP successor..? wtf?

[panphrack]

Jesse Ventura / Ron Paul 2012

[watcher8o]

Too bad he's a NAFTA supporter and pro-open borders. He also lacks the good Dr. Paul's praiseworthy stance on abortion.

[eric710221]

@watcher8o I agree

[fczwartek]

"Paul's praiseworthy stance on abortion."

I fail to find anything "praiseworthy" about RP's stance on abortion. He has pandered to both the christo-fascists and the libertarian states rights crowds throughout his career.

According to Paul abortion is "mass murder" but in 1988 he ran for a party that claimed "gvmnt should stay out of the matter."

Huh? Really?

So "mass murder" is acceptable policy by if a state allows it but not the federal gvmnt?

[fczwartek]

I should follow that up by saying that I personally believe a persons reproductive rights supersede "states rights" and that abortion of a fetus that cannot survive outside the womb is not "mass murder."

[ferrozm]

read the constitution shit head. RP may not believe that himself but if the govt follows the rules that is how its supposed to be

[fczwartek]

I have read the constitution, and guess what?

The 10th amendment doesn't give states the authority to invade a persons privacy or put restrictions on someone's reproductive rights.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." - The Constitution

[thesoothsayers]

The 10th Amendment was created to stop FEDERALISM. And, that is what the Civil War was fought over, Federal Government vs State's Rights. The Federalists one, and hence, the mess we have today. The 10th (1791)stated that those rights not explicitly given to the Feds by the previous parts of the Constitution, are LEFT TO THE STATES. AND, anything left that IS NOT PROHIBITED by the Constitution are left EXPLICITLY to the States. The intention of the Comity Clause was to make sure states didn't

[fczwartek]

So according to you the racist southern states have the "right" to impose segregation on black people because the US constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit that?

Without intervention from the federal gvmnt most of the welfare dependent republican stronghold of the south would still be segregated.

[davyjames]

I think nobody except the property owner has the right to say who goes on his own property and keeping slaves is obviously immoral. However the federal government can't just go around making up its own rules either (though it obviously does) when they're pretending to adhere to the constitution.

[nero8289]

How is the south racist? I live in floirda,and I know verry few racists.

[utubehayter]

Actually this is true. But then the escaped slaves would not be returned either. And keeping guard over slaves is far too expensive when there is a possibility of asylum for them (just look at prisons today).

[utubehayter]

And the US constitution was a big mistake (doesn't matter anymore .. so the "was").  The declaration of independence, articles of confederation were far better.

[thesoothsayers]

treat each others citizens unfairly, discriminate. That doesn't mean that a state can't ban or allow abortion. It was meant to apply to basic civil rights. You can read about the intent in the Federalist Papers. Bottom line, it means that states must protect citizens of others states while in their state with the same rights it protects its own citizens. It has nothing to do with how it treats its OWN CITIZENS RIGHTS/ PRIVILEGES. Abortion like most issues, is not a Federal issue. But a states.

[fczwartek]

Uh, the last time I checked the right to privacy IS a basic civil right. Like it or not the supreme court has said that a woman's reproductive choices are a matter of privacy (a basic civil right protected by the 14th amendment) and not a "states rights" issue.

I can't believe that libertarians are making the argument that the gvmnt should has the authority to abridge a persons fundamental civil rights.

[utubehayter]

That is a false premise.. libertarians are not making an argument FOR govt, but they also do not believe in "civil rights" for there is no such thing as "civil rights". All rights are property rights - no more and no less.

e.g. you have freedom of speech on property where the owner allows you. You can't break into people's home to give a speech and they can throw you out - its their property right. Doesn't mean you can't speak, but you must do it where you are the owner/have proper permission

[fczwartek]

Libertarians who want the gvmnt to invade a person's privacy and restrict a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices are certainly advocating for more gvmnt, regardless or how u categorize that right.

Breaking into someone's home to give a speech is a ridiculous non sequitur. Obviously that's not legal, no one ever claimed it was.

[thesoothsayers]

You make no sense, Libertarians want the government out of decision making, they want people to be able to make their OWN decisions without government interference. Where do you come up with these ideas?

[utubehayter]

Do you know what the libertarian position on so-called "woman's choice" is? It is pretty brilliant, but until you drop your tendency to assume and actually learn what libertarianism is - you will always get into these meaningless arguments.

Do you know that all libertarians agree on two things - and based on those two things, they decide on how to handle other issues, unlike the "progressives" or the "conservatives" - they do not have a list of what to do on which issue.

[fczwartek]

To the best of my knowledge the libertarian position on abortion is "gvmnt should be kept out of the matter."

A commendable position.

What I don't understand is why libertarians say "keep gvmnt out of it" and then claim that "its a states right issue."

That's called speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

All I'm saying is that it is not a states rights issue its a privacy issue, and states can't make laws that restrict a person privacy.

It is not so hard to understand.

[utubehayter]

Well, then you do not actually understand the libertarian position. And many people who claim to be libertarian also do not get it either - but they too should learn more about it before claiming the name of the ideology. Not everyone has the time to understand what the ideology is anyway, right?

Libertarianism is not a centrist idea - its not an arbitrary collection of positions like the "left"' and the "right" are. It has two basic fundamental and inviolable principles - NAP and PP.

[fczwartek]

"you don't understand the libertarian position."

I don't? That's funny cuz the official libertarian party position on abortion is "keep gvmnt out of it" (pretty simple and starightfoward.) Presumably they mean both state and federal gvmnt.

I agree with the libertarians on that. So please enlighten me if I have it wrong.

[utubehayter]

Try to understand that the Libertarian party is not exactly libertarian. This is no different than the republicans not being for rule of law and the democrats not being for democracy.

[juliaisafilmbuff123]

@utubehayter Agreed.

There are many different "libertarians". The term "libertarian" has been hijacked by right-wingers when libertarian originally meant anarch-socialist (yes, I said SOCIALIST). It's a sad thing to see so many people throwing the word around and using it in the context of "I believe I should be allowed to own as much property as I want without any regulations".

[utubehayter]

Sorry, but libertarians were never socialist. You may be confusing the "Anarchists" with libertarians. Early Anarchists were originally of the socialist types (or that is how they are reinterpreted to be today), that is true - that is the history of the term. However, socialism is not anarchy - which means no such thing as anarcho-socialist can actually exist.

libertarians were never socialist of any sort - because libertarians have a fundamental principle of PP.

[edengard]

People seem keen to recycle words however they want; this isn't the first, and it definitely won't be the last. Anyways, even if socialists used the word libertarian first, I think it's a misnomer. Anyone arguing FOR socialization and peer pressure is just arguing for government without the title, and in no way is that liberating. Force by threat of violence and force by threat of banishment or ostracization are equally unfree.

[FlashVirus]

Actually, since Socialists don't believe in property rights, how can 'Libertarian' be stolen? And if Left-wingers want 'libertarian' back then I want the word 'liberal' back.

[DaniOcean]

Yeah, and the socialists hijacked the term liberal and said we are right-wing conservatives. But the truth is they are (I asume you too) simple left progressive socialist (emphasis on "simple").

[thesoothsayers]

You don't get it, most people who aren't trained in reading the law don't. Where did I state that the right to privacy is not a basic civil right? Where did I say that abortion or anything else is going to be allowed? Your tune would be different if the Feds said they were going to ban abortions. You can't pick and chose depending on your "feelings". The Constitution was written to give states the power that wasn't given to the feds. What does that have to do with abortion?

[fczwartek]

You said that abortion is a states right issue and not a privacy issue.

I disagree (and so does the supreme court.)

States shouldn't (and don't) have the authority to take away rights that are guaranteed by federal constitution.

[utubehayter]

Why the blind devotion to the federal constitution? Remember that this is the same constitution that has miserably failed to guarantee anything. The federal govt - including the supreme court violate the federal constitution all the time. Also, this is the same constitution that forced the anti-slavery states to capture and return escaped blacks to their slave masters at the anti-slavery folks dime.

As far as I am concerned it is a total failure and a historical mistake.

[fczwartek]

I don't remember claiming that the constitution is perfect.

You use the example of slavery to highlight the flaws of the constitution, And slavery is certainly a big flaw.

And that would be a legitimate argument if slavery was never abolished. But it was. And segregation 100 years after that.

More people experience more freedom in this country now than compared to any time in history. Because of the constitution, not despite it.

[utubehayter]

Ah.. you see the constitution is not perfect. Then why should it claims - good or bad be forced with the threat of assault from the mighty US military machine on people who say disagree with it? This is precisely what happened in the War to prevent southern independence.

Also, its absolutely not true that people "experience more freedom in the USA now than in any time of history". But then that is what a nationalist has to believe and is taught in public schools.

[utubehayter]

Also, slavery was not a flaw in the constitution - but was the spirit of the constitution. This is why the congress has the power to borrow any amount of money it likes on the credit of the "taxpayers of the USA". There has been a nominal "limit" on it - but that limit too is under the sole discretion of the same congress that is borrowing the money.

[fczwartek]

I would agree with you that the initial purpose of the constitution was to "protect" the wealthy from the majority, and have the men that owned the country make the rules. John Jay and James Madison both believed that.

And that is still absolutely true today.

As far as slavery goes, that was abolished 144 years ago. The same constitution that you're bitching about facilitated and legitimized the process that ended slavery.

[utubehayter]

If you want to show that the constitution facilitated ending slavery, you should have some evidence for it.. but do you? For example - most other nations don't actually have a constitution, and none as easy or concise as the US constitution - yet almost no where is slavery legal!

Heck the British did not have a written constitution - and they ended slavery far earlier than the US.

Where is your evidence that the constitution - that you agree enforced and subsidized slavery - helped in ending it

[fczwartek]

Slavery was an abomination.

In the original colonies slavery was considered to be an economic necessity and accepted as a cultural "norm" for at least 170 years before the constitution was even written!

After the constitution was written slavery was ended in less than 80 years.

The constitution could not put an instant end to a despicable practice had been deeply rooted in American culture and economics for centuries, nothing could do that. But it did facilitate it.

[utubehayter]

That is just cognitive dissonance talking. How can a document explicitly protecting slavery be credited for its end? It is just as insane as crediting a robber for enriching his victims. A good parallel is the creationists first saying evolution never happened, but when it becomes obvious they say - god arranged evolution. You cannot have it both ways!

[utubehayter]

This idea that either we subsidize something or we bomb something - interestingly this describes the your idea of the effect of the constitution - is the exact same thing the US does in foreign policy today.

Besides who wants a schizophrenic constitution like that anyway?  Not me.

[thesoothsayers]

You still don't get it. Forget it. Nowhere does it state in the Constitution that a person does or does not have a right to an abortion, to blow their own head off, or anything else. If the Supreme court becomes conservative, and bans abortions, I am sure your argument will change. And then, you will want states to have their own rights. You are the kind of person who agrees with the interpretation of laws when it suits them, but when it doesn't you don't. I won't respond to you anymore.

[ferrozm]

they aren't reproductive rights because its murder. the fetus is a living being and religious and atheistic people believe that

[jsh78mang]

@fczwartek on state level it can be changed easier then if done by the gov. Also it would be voted on by the people of that state and not a bunch of idiots most not in touch with the people they are supposed to represent.

[PoliticalPhilomather]

i agree, mostly. but people who vote are still idiots. and voting assumes fairness. there is nothing fair about democracy.

[RidleyReport]

pro open borders would actually be an improvement over Dr. Paul who wanted to waste money on border enforcement.

If you want the border guarded, send money to the Minutemen or guard it yourself....don't drag taxpayers into it.

[watcher8o]

Well, border control needs to be massively reformed. My preference would be to allow the sheriff to handle the criminal element that ebbs over the line, while defunding any kind of welfare state that supports the current invasion underway. The international crisis that we are facing needs a little more than a citizen lobby group to handle it. I dislike how things are handled currently, but the idealist approach of absorbing the world's 5 billion poor and rejected will not work.

[lomocan]

@RidleyReport

Please watch CNN debates, Ron Paul said that he'd like open borders too but that is AFTER, we've gotten rid of all the "free" benetits so that illegals won't be able to sponge off of it at taxpayers' expense.

This Johnson guy has CFR ties, wants NAFTA - those seem like signs of a PUPPET for North American Union & one world government.

I could be wrong but this is what I believe at the moment.

[chaset51]

@RidleyReport we could use the military forces that are policing the world to police our borders =/

[pureaggression]

@RidleyReport Maybe if the wars were completely ended we could downsize it drasticly?