The Libertarian Party Race is Filling Up?

[ATM]

I'm getting good at this...



http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/johnson-reverses-vaccination/

Though it certainly would be nice if the LP nominees understood and promoted fundamental libertarianism, from a macro view they and their party still seem to me the lesser evil of three lousy ballot choices to wield the whole illegitimate scope of power yielded to the executive branch of the federal government.

 

[nate77]

Though it certainly would be nice if the LP nominees understood and promoted fundamental libertarianism, from a macro view they and their party still seem to me the lesser evil of three lousy ballot choices to wield the whole illegitimate scope of power yielded to the executive branch of the federal government.

Seems to be getting worse everyday though.

Gun control, vaccines, TPP, Carbon taxes, inclusiveness enforced at the barrel of a gun.

 

[ATM]

Seems to be getting worse everyday though.

Gun control, vaccines, TPP, Carbon taxes, inclusiveness enforced at the barrel of a gun.

Sure, and if these were the only issues they'd address during their term, they wouldn't seem any less evil than the other two choices.

It's why I referenced the macro view, remember that POTUS equates to supreme ruler of our world now and involves himself with, well, everything.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Though it certainly would be nice if the LP nominees understood and promoted fundamental libertarianism, from a macro view they and their party still seem to me the lesser evil of three lousy ballot choices to wield the whole illegitimate scope of power yielded to the executive branch of the federal government.

I think the net result of a president's term, from any one of these three, will be indiscernible. They will each have different, specific results but bottom line will be government will not get smaller and they will each attack liberty based on their own priorities. Meh! to all 3 of them.

 

[Jludo]

I think the net result of a president's term, from any one of these three, will be indiscernible. They will each have different, specific results but bottom line will be government will not get smaller and they will each attack liberty based on their own priorities. Meh! to all 3 of them.

So you don't believe Johnson wants/ plans on 20% reduction in govt spending while the other two clearly don't plan on cutting anywhere.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So you don't believe Johnson wants/ plans on 20% reduction in govt spending while the other two clearly don't plan on cutting anywhere.

I don't believe he'll be able to do it for one thing. I think he'll be a slave to his SJW, pro-pot, God hating agenda first.

 

[ATM]

I don't believe he'll be able to do it for one thing. I think he'll be a slave to his SJW, pro-pot, God hating agenda first.

...which is not a libertarian agenda, btw.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

...which is not a libertarian agenda, btw.

Understood. Which is why I expect him to pursue one while given lip service to the other.

 

[mrjarrell]

Gary Johnson Changes His Mind on Mandatory Childhood Vaccinations - Hit & Run : Reason.com

A bit more than just the money quote that raised the ire of someone who wasn't voting for Johnson anyway.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Gary Johnson Changes His Mind on Mandatory Childhood Vaccinations - Hit & Run : Reason.com

A bit more than just the money quote that raised the ire of someone who wasn't voting for Johnson anyway.

From one of the links in your link:

In Reversal, Gov. Gary Johnson Now Supports Mandatory Vaccination | Vermont Public Radio

“In my opinion, this is a local issue. If it ends up to be a federal issue, I would come down on the side of science and I would probably require that vaccine,” he said.

Spin if you must but if he were president, and this became an issue, he would use the force of the federal government to flash bang your kids, shoot your dog, and maybe shoot you, if he had to, to make sure your kids took the vaccine.

 

[mrjarrell]

I seriously doubt Johnson would send in troops to make sure my already vaccinated kids got vaccinated. He might well well quarantine your infected kids but I don't see much more beyond that. The government does routinely line up people to get vaccinated in the military and government workers and first responders. Never have seen a gun pulled on them, but a few have been fired for not doing as they should.

Let's look at the whole quote, shall we?

Now, according to Vermont Public Radio, Johnson has rethought his views on mandatory vaccination. Johnson says in the interview:

I've come to find out that without mandatory vaccines, the vaccines that would in fact be issued would not be effective," he said. "So … it's dependent that you have mandatory vaccines so that every child is immune. Otherwise, not all children will be immune even though they receive a vaccine."
Johnson said he believes vaccination policy should be handled at the local level.
"In my opinion, this is a local issue. If it ends up to be a federal issue, I would come down on the side of science and I would probably require that vaccine," he said.
Johnson said his position changed recently.
"It's an evolution actually just in the last few months, just in the last month or so," he said. "I was under the belief that … 'Why require a vaccine? If I don't want my child to have a vaccine and you want yours to, let yours have the vaccine and they'll be immune.' Well, it turns out that that's not the case, and it may sound terribly uninformed on my part, but I didn't realize that."
​

Good for him. Johnson clearly recognizes that vaccinations safely protect people from diseases. In addition, he has now come to recognize the importance of herd immunity for protecting vulnerable people who are too young to be vaccinated, whose vaccinations have failed to take, and those whose immune systems are compromised.
For more background, see my article, "Refusing Vaccination Puts Others Risk," in which I explain that there is no principled libertarian case for free-riders to refuse to take responsibility for their own microbes.

 

[jamil]

It is seeming more and more evident to me that Johnson suffers from a sort of liberty dysphoria where he has become uncomfortable with fully embracing individual liberty.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I seriously doubt Johnson would send in troops to make sure my already vaccinated kids got vaccinated. He might well well quarantine your infected kids but I don't see much more beyond that. The government does routinely line up people to get vaccinated in the military and government workers and first responders. Never have seen a gun pulled on them, but a few have been fired for not doing as they should.

Let's look at the whole quote, shall we?

Face it, MJ...your angels are no better than anyone else's'.

 

[mrjarrell]

It is seeming more and more evident to me that Johnson suffers from a sort of liberty dysphoria where he has become uncomfortable with fully embracing individual liberty.

This may be true, but he does come from a republican background and has that holding him back in many instances.

 

[mrjarrell]

Face it, MJ...your angels are no better than anyone else's'.

Mine are vaccinated, at least.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Mine are vaccinated, at least.

So shall we all be, if Johnson has his way!

 

[mrjarrell]

Nope. That's not what he said. He said it's a local issue. He would only become involved if it were to become a federal issue. There are very few circumstances where that would happen. A plague, a bio war weapon, or a serious outbreak of a deadly infectious disease where the population was at risk. We've already seen what happens when fools refuse to vaccinate and cause an outbreak. There has been no federal response of any kind with these outbreaks, all response has been local and state. That's as it should be. The feds aren't going to get involved in a pertussis or measles outbreak. Weaponised smallpox? I would expect no less than federal involvement.

 

[BugI02]

So on a tangent, if I have my children vaccinated and you do not; how is your choice affecting anyone other than you or other folks who have opted not to vaccinate. If there is a measles outbreak in the school is not my child protected? Isn't that the point of opting in for vaccination?

Would not a true Libertarian support your right to make a personal choice that does not potentially harm others (except others who have opted out, as already mentioned). If you are aware of a risk and decide to take it, what role does government legitimately have?

 

[mrjarrell]

So on a tangent, if I have my children vaccinated and you do not; how is your choice affecting anyone other than you or other folks who have opted not to vaccinate. If there is a measles outbreak in the school is not my child protected? Isn't that the point of opting in for vaccination?

Would not a true Libertarian support your right to make a personal choice that does not potentially harm others (except others who have opted out, as already mentioned). If you are aware of a risk and decide to take it, what role does government legitimately have?

Because vaccinations do not afford 100% protection. There are also many people, including the very young and infants, who cannot be vaccinated. Unvaccinated people put them, and others at risk.

A libertarian position does allow for you to take crap poor decisions with your children's health. But when that decision could affect others in a deleterious fashion, like by infecting them, then you've crossed a line. Most unvaccinated kids won't die from the measles, but some do. Same with pertussis and other diseases. A case could be made that not vaccinating your kids and then sending them out in public could in fact be a violation of the NAP.

Refusing Vaccination Puts Others At Risk - Reason.com

Immune Compromised Woman Dies of Measles: Are the Unvaccinated Legally Responsible? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/324...ooping-cough-in-appeal-to-anti-vaxxers/#page1

 

[jamil]

Because vaccinations do not afford 100% protection. There are also many people, including the very young and infants, who cannot be vaccinated. Unvaccinated people put them, and others at risk.

A libertarian position does allow for you to take crap poor decisions with your children's health. But when that decision could affect others in a deleterious fashion, like by infecting them, then you've crossed a line. Most unvaccinated kids won't die from the measles, but some do. Same with pertussis and other diseases. A case could be made that not vaccinating your kids and then sending them out in public could in fact be a violation of the NAP.

Refusing Vaccination Puts Others At Risk - Reason.com

Immune Compromised Woman Dies of Measles: Are the Unvaccinated Legally Responsible? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/324...ooping-cough-in-appeal-to-anti-vaxxers/#page1

Because Hey, if you can't use government force to compel compliance for the good of the masses, what else is the force of government good for?

There are different varieties of reasons to be libertarian. Some are individualists first. Some are collectivist anarchists. Seems to be that the ones lean libertarian because they are first individualists would tend to tell the anarco-socialist ones to **** the hell off and kiss my Gadsden.