Slashdot Mirror
The NSA Would Be Eliminated Under President Gary Johnson (thehill.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson says he'd sign an executive order eliminating America's National Security Agency if he wins the 2016 election. And he's also forcefully arguing that domestic surveillance of internet activity and phone calls in the United States is worse than in China. Johnson took issue with an interviewer at The Daily Beast who pointed out that China monitors political dissidents, saying "What do you call the NSA and the satellites that are trained on us and the fact that 110 million Verizon users are having everything we do on our cell phones being data-collected?"
Johnson also wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, replacing both income taxes and corporate taxes with a single federal consumption tax, and says he'd be willing to sign legislation eliminating the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Commerce, which he says fuels "crony capitalism". "I'll sign legislation to eliminate any federal agency that they present me with."
Johnson has also said that if he were elected President, he'd pardon Edward Snowden.
Johnson also wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, replacing both income taxes and corporate taxes with a single federal consumption tax, and says he'd be willing to sign legislation eliminating the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Commerce, which he says fuels "crony capitalism". "I'll sign legislation to eliminate any federal agency that they present me with."
Johnson has also said that if he were elected President, he'd pardon Edward Snowden.
Yessssss so glad I've been a Johnson supporter for years, keep up the good fight Gary you have our vote!
Not a lot of middle ground in this election.
Good thing politicians never do what they say.
But there are too many other people that would see to it that what he wants doesn't happen. Not a conspiracy, but just the nature of Presidency: there's not that much executive power.
...and thus loses the lunatic libertarian vote.
Far more likely that the NSA would eliminate him.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
And he still sounds better than Trump and Clinton.
He knows, we know, he will never have to make good on any of his campaign promises or boasts. He is 100% certain to lose the election.
He can promise anything he wants and it's meaningless. So why not go for the big ones: abolish the IRS but bring a efficient and fair tax enforcement, dismantle the Fed and have a strong monetary policy, kill off Wall Street and at the same time promote free enterprise, yadda, yadda.
Singling out only the universally unpopular NSA ist what a coward would do.
Backed Johnson 4 years ago, he's either gone off his rocker since then or just shown his true colors as a racist, homophobic bastard.
What are you talking about?
Personal point:
keeping the secret agencies in check & under control = good/wise
abolishing everything = idiotic
bolstering secret agencies further = equally idiot as abolishing them
Hint:
Never choose an extreme, because you can certainly be sure that you are wrong even when you are right.
Eh I dunno, I think it's probably best to just look at a political candidate for what they can do rather than what they say they'll do. For example, he can't abolish either the NSA or the IRS; the former is within the domain of the senate, and the later is within the domain of congress. He can pardon Edward Snowden however, which is basically the only sane thing I've heard out of any of the major candidates for this election year.
If on the one hand we have a giant douche, and on the other we have a turd sandwich, I think a third party candidate could succeed if he's a tic-tac.
Right now, Juan Perón and Ferdinand Marcos could run and I couldn't say if they'd be the worst choice.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A minor third-party candidate without a snowball's chance in Hades of winning the election draws attention to a lagging campaign by making extraordinary promises. Oh, wait.. we're talking about the same story..
And if I could go to the moon, I would eat SOO MUCH CHEESE.
If this guy actually got elected. We all hate the status quo, but give us something thats not going to throw everything up in the air, and ruin the country. None of the candidates are any good. How bout Bones for President?
Agency *** that even the president doesn't know about. The one that really runs things hidden behind closed doors.
It's Jesus.
All hail the Jewish State In the Levant!
Gary Johnson is the only moral humanist in these elections. He wants freedom, he doesn't want the government to steal from anybody to redistribute to anybody else, doesn't want to spy on civilians for no reason, he would not start new wars (I wonder how he would deal with the current ones). In the USA he is a rarity today, unfortunatly.
You can't handle the truth.
Right, okay. I'm behind him on all that, it sounds super, but it won't happen and we know it. Even if he were elected, none of it would happen. Why? Because while our system might be corrupt, broken, and ineffective; it is very good at preventing change. If I'm being realistic, that's what we (you, I, everyone) actually want. Everyone says they want change, but they don't. What we all really want is for tomorrow to be pretty much like today.
There is no "capitalism" under "libertarianism". Without government to enforce laws, it all devolves into "strong man with big stick takes everything".
Um, wot? The Senate and The House of Representatives are the two houses of "Congress," and neither can pass a law without the other. Need clarification. I do agree about pardoning Snowden, though.
Source? I never got that vibe from anything I've seen him say or do, but then I don't exactly monitor his every step.
He can't abolish the IRS, but he most certainly can abolish the NSA and the Departments of Ed, HUD, and Commerce. All of those operate under the authority of the executive branch, and as long as the president doesn't want to spend more money, he can effectively do whatever the hell he wants within his own domain.
I'm really surprised that /. is not behind this candidate 100%.
The headline makes it sound a bit more radical than it is.
First his beef with the NSA is domestic spying. He says he'd still have "the sattelites" but make sure they were outward looking not domestic. By "sattelites" I am fairly sure he's using that as a proxy for all the NSA does in scooping domestic intelligence. And after all isn't that exactly what gets slashdotter's all uppity. The things that Snowden pointed out? So really for slashdot this is bowling a strike.
Second, a federal consumption tax. Now normally a consumption tax is regressive: if you spend your whole pay check, as a poor person, then you are paying a greater share of the tax. That's not quite as bad as it sounds. Even if you have a progressive income tax, Where people richer than you or corporations pay income taxes they want higher wages or higher margins and so it drives up the cost of the poor person's consumables. You can make a consumption tax somewhat anti-regressive by making any residual income taxes more progressive. I don't know if Johnston is planning such compensation. I'd like to see his numbers. But I'm not going to flatly reject it.
Eliminatine the dept of education? Well as long as states can manage it, okay. I'm sure congress will tie the fed kickback to the states to educational standards so things won't go to hell in mississippi or texas.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Oh look, a leftist labeling someone a "racist" for being interested in actual change to help disadvantaged minorities rather than the normal feel-good platitudes put out by the left. So original.
Every morning, there would be a lollipop under my pillow, if President Gary Johnson can just be elected.
At first i was like "who was Gary Johnson?" Then was like... oh, who would throw his vote away? Need everyone to get out to vote for Trump because another 4 years of a Democrat would be very bad.
Hilary is already getting the stupid vote, so why is Johnson going for the stupid voting block?
Philosophically, which is worse? Selecting and monitoring known or suspected political dissidents, or blanket monitoring everyone?
If the Libertarians wanted any real influence, they'd declare one of the primary parties candidates as theirs and support him/her. Then after the election if that candidate won and say 'we delivered x votes to put you over the top, you owe us, here's what we want you to support'. As it is, all they do is suck just enough votes away to swing the election from one primary party candidate to the other which just irritates the other parties and doesn't make any friends.
I have said it before and I'll say it again - In the US you don't have the luxury of voting for the person you want to be president, you have to vote against the person you don't want to be president. That leaves no room for third parties.
The fact that two outsiders made such big inroads on both sides of the aisle gives me hope that after Clinton wins this election that there will be enough popular support for replacing the voting system with something like run-off voting. Especially if Trump and Sanders would use their substantial platforms to start the conversation.
Why is this moderated as Interesting? It's a re-hash of a set of tropes that everyone has surely heard before.
no. my dad was an extreme leftist and said stupid things like that regularly.
Trump is not a conservative. Clinton is significantly to his right on several issues (such as those in TFA).
Racist? Sure. Enthusiastic target of violence? Sure. Having leftists arrested for trying to hurt his supporters galvanized the far right to support him. It was brilliant for him to play into that. But is he actually conservative in his governing philosophy? Not even close.
Trump has less chance than Johnson.
I don't see how anything there that prevents the poor from getting poorer, and the rich from getting richer. Oh, and I almost forgot, libertarians think the minimum wage is wrong.
This sounds like an improvement over our current system that is right now accelerating growth of the economic gap. The data shows that the bureaucratic welfare state encourages the poor to get poorer and the rich to get richer. A light government touch might not be ideal, but it is an improvement over the rigged bread and circuses system we have.
Trump has less chance than Johnson.
The "Johnson" isn't Trump's problem, remember? There's "no problem" there as he's assured us on numerous prior occasions.
Because he's not a criminal or a raving nut. Sad but necessary.
Backed Anonymous Coward 4 years ago, he's either gone off his rocker since then or just shown his true colors as a racist, homophobic bastard.
The IRS is also an executive implementation. The GP has no idea what he's talking about.
Britney Spears or Pamela Anderson probably have.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
From the shelter of your mom's basement that ~might~ seem sensible, but now confront reality of the world. Large segments freezing to death for lack of shelter, starving to death for lack of food, and the increasingly paranoid few riding in luxury. A strong government is the only end point above the gangs that operate in its absence, and in those areas without see that the gangs are armed militia groups engaging in mass rape and murder (ISIL, etc).
Oh fuck. Seriously. Libertarianism is a joke. Enjoy privately funded fire departments.
Your dad was Stalin? Cool!
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
What has Trump said - his actual words - that is racist?
I'll wager $10,000 that Trump gets more votes that Johnson. I'll even give you 10:1 odds - my $10,000 versus your $1,000. You want to take that wager?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Is this guy just a personified strawman?
This guy gets it.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Yet, your political philosophy as stated here is about as mature as an undergrads. Did you fail to grow up?
I fail to see why a Stalinist police state's mass rape & murder is preferable to the small gangs of rape & murder. And you should move out of your mom's basement, so she can comfortably audibilize her orgasms while I fuck her.
FAGGOT
any and consumer and employee protections. (Financial) Might Makes Right would be the law of the land.
Unfortunately, Francisco Franco is still dead.
This strikes me as a Very Bad Idea
Review their processes more thoroughly sure... have more have more accountability for their actions, certainly... but get rid of them? I don't want to imagine the can of worms that would open.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Maybe he's thinking of Switzerland.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If the U.S. is at war with China et. al. and is going through this throes only to lose in the end, it would be predictive of better success to instigate an all-out nuclear attack now, while they still have a chance of winning.
Consumption tax is a regressive tax policy -- poor people who have to spend their whole paycheck are taxed on every dollar while rich people who invest large portions of their income get off without taxes. This is a tool to increase the gap between rich and poor and I will never support any candidate who advocates consumption taxes.
At least nobody can call you sexist...
Promising things he knows full well only Congress can do, that are beyond presidential authority. and knowing full well that no Congress that sits during the next term ever would. Empty promises of ridiculous things.
I'm not sure he could even pardon Snowden without Snowden first being convicted, technically.
No thanks. The tax should always be based on how much you harvest from society.
Hey, that's a nice society you built up with infrastructure, strong military defense, social services and a well regulated market - can I rip that all apart? Libertarians will never start any sort of society - they can only leave an existing one that educated them, let them create/earn wealth, and sells them the goods and services their own country can never, ever make. Gary and his like-minded true believers should leave here and move to their dream country - it already exists - it's called "Somalia".
imagine a soft, buttery paw gently pressing down onto a sleeping soldier's face. forever.
establishment and they will never allow anybody any chance to fuck them
To date the establishment has followed the banksters and them pricks are without a doubt a busload of retards (proven by their ability to go start shit in China and get their ass handed to them in a currency war and screw their own empire), and for that reason no one else can fuck with the establishment any better than themselves. Follow a busload of retards and count yourself in as a retard.
As for the NSA, no reason to get rid of them, their original intended directive could be restored. The corporate espionage bullshit as given an observed chance just isn't working for the big picture, I guess the trick would be to teach the retards to see this.
IMHO, Gary Johnson is not going far enough. While we are at it, we can eliminate the utterly worthless Homeland Security altogether. Let's also get rid of the DEA, move the ATF mission to the FBI and scrap enforcement of tobacco and alcohol. Just cutting those bloated agencies alone would pay for social programs to make life in America better and easier for everyday Americans. I would council caution with eliminating Housing and Urban Development but restructuring it strictly as an advocacy unit for the poor. The Department of Education, could have some value if completely scrapped and built from the ground up with professional educators instead of bureaucrats and politicians. As for the Department of Commerce and the IRS .... let them go bye bye.
At this point it's irrelevant to even bother with other candidates. Whether you dislike him or support him, it's becoming clearer each day that Trump will soon be President Trump.
If that's true, then there's absolutely no point whatsoever in voting for Trump. It's not like you get a prize for betting on the winning horse. You might as well vote for Johnson and try to persuade as many others as possible to as well, because if ending domestic dragnet surveillance is the only thing he's known for then, even if he loses, every single vote for him will be seen as a vote up for grabs for whichever other party adopts that same position in the next election and will influence the actions of the presidents for the next two terms.
You get one vote and if you waste it on voting for the candidate who's "going to win anyway" then you accomplish nothing.
no, it would not.
AND, not OR, get it right
Most "conservatives" aren't conservative... if they were, then the House/Senate leadership wouldn't rubber stamp Obama's wants/desires at every step - constantly going against "conservative" values.
Unfortunately, Francisco Franco is still dead.
So at least he has that going for him.
My Glock spits 357 Sig ;)
I have a lot of sympathy for libertarian ideas, but party leaders need to start thinking how to win elections in a democracy that includes voters with diverse political convictions. I can think of a platform that will appeal to a healthy fraction of Democrats and Republicans:
Cutting off the lower steps on a ladder makes it easier to climb.
And damnit, Abe Vigoda is finally dead, too...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
A true role model for many, many politicians.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Current system already makes poor stay poor by providing disincentive to work (you lose your benefits faster than your income increases, food stamps can not be saved up to finance a hot dog stand). Replacing it with basic income would give poor more flexibility to rise up and make many workspace regulations unnecessary as people can walk out without fear of destitution.
As for the rich, well the largest companies were going to collapse in 2008 and give smaller car makers like Tesla and others a chance to succeed. Remember what happened instead?
In a truly free market without corporate personhood, people would also go to banks where executives are responsible with their own cars and houses if they lose customer deposits. Think they would still behave as recklessly and take such huge bonuses while the bank fails then?
Trump/Johnson 2016, anyone?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In this case you do get a prize for voting for Trump: the best candidate gets in power for the next 4 years, and likely even for the next 8.
The reward associated with this prize is a restoration of America to its former glory. Immigration law is finally enforced for the first time in decades, strengthening the American economy. Unjust free trade deals would likely be thrown away, again strengthening the American economy. When America's economy is strong, like it was in the 1950s and 1960s, America accomplishes great things.
The last 40 years of open borders and unjust free trade have nearly destroyed America. That's why it's time to leave those policies behind and move forward with President Trump leading the way.
Yeah, the glory days of the fifties. The world was in ruins, most governments were new and fragile, and millions of people had died. I don't think you really understand that decade - the US did well despite the policy at the time, not because of it. The US became what it was because everybody else in the world had to deal with the fallout of the war, whereas the US's physical location shielded it from that. Furthermore, it was the war itself that directly brought the US out of the depths of the Great Depression. Without the incredible amounts of weapons exported, we'd still have absolutely no working rights, working 16 hour days for a dollar a day - in other words, what most developing countries endure today.
Are you seriously advocating for Mr. Trump to start a world war? Maybe you should look up what the 30's in the US looked like, because that's where we'd be heading if you want to follow the glorious policies of the past.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Trump has been in the public eye for decades. He has a global brand. If he was actually racist, especially in this "attack anyone for anything remotely looking like racism" RacistLivesMatter environment that the US is in... He would have been labeled as such years ago...
The fact that he only became "racist" when he decided to run on the Republican ticket (he's more "moderate"/"independent" than Republican... but that's okay, because Country is more important than R or D).
Banning Muslims? Okay when carter did it... not okay when a Republican suggests it.
Building walls? Okay when Hillary suggests it, but not when a Republican suggests it.
America first? no way in hell Democrats would suggest that... Criminals first (like their nominee). America's enemies first (Iran, Cuba, etc). Murderers first (Because... it's the NRA, Christians and Republicans fault for all of the terrorist acts... not Radical Islam).
Besides... the "conservatives" that got elected into power (Republicans in House and Senate) aren't "conservative". If they were, we'd not have more years of rubber stamping Obama's initiatives at every turn.
Trump isn't conservative enough? Good... maybe he'll actually get something done instead that actually benefits America and American's.
To my mind SELinux's value comes from it being free software. The freedoms of free software allow us to vet, run, share, and modify SELinux and make sure it does what we need it to do. Coming from NSA is nice because I'm sure the NSA hires skilled programmers who worked on SELinux, but I'm not going to trust any non-free software coming from the NSA because non-free software (regardless of purpose or stated intent) is untrustworthy.
The drug war (the US's longest war?), which seems intimately tied to the Drug Enforcement Agency, certainly is a horror.
Digital Citizen
... and why is it the government's job to keep the rich from getting richer, as long as they're doing it legally?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
.. Large segments freezing to death for lack of shelter, starving to death for lack of food, ...
The sad thing is that, while there are isolated cases of this, that you think it's some huge problem involving "large segments." There's 350 million or so people in the U.S., hearing about a tragedy here and there isn't representative of anything like "large segments."
Stupid sexy Flanders.
We need a new Johnson.
He's right for all the wrong reasons.
When the Congress passes a law that says "Do this!" then it is the duty of the Executive branch to faithfully carry out the laws of the land, as passed by Congress. If the laws violate the Constitution, then the Judiciary will point that out, and those bad laws will be invalidated.
So, no, as long as Congress says "There will be an NSA, and here's its budget" then the President MUST maintain the NSA.
While the current President seems to feel he owns the government and can do with it anything he wants, the actual law of the land is that the President is forced to do what the Congress wants. If we ever get a less popular President, you'd find out how quickly Constitutionalists can come crawling out of the woodwork to prevent "Presidential Overreach" and "Executive assumptions of powers".
No it fucking doesn't. What kind of ass backwards ladders are you buying?
No other time since the great depression and perhaps the 1850's did America become so disgusted with politics and the heads of both parties. The Whigs are turned into the Republican party is today when they splintered and got an unpopular leader. Hell, Republicans were a fringe party and even Lincoln admitted he was a Whig but turned to the new Republican party.
We have a dismal 15% approval rating of all parties and both houses. We have 2 terrible choices with Hillary or Trump. To top it off we have an angry conservative GOP base who HATES TRUMP and all he stands for. Romney is even considering supporting the Libertarian party but strongly disagrees on it's stance on drugs.
Most people do not know who Johnson is and independents who do like him, but worry he has no traction. If Romney and Paul Ryan endorse him that problem will go away.
Conservatives will fill at home most of the time with a Libertarian president. I think he maybe the next Ross Perot but we will see.
http://saveie6.com/
Um, wot? The Senate and The House of Representatives are the two houses of "Congress," and neither can pass a law without the other. Need clarification. I do agree about pardoning Snowden, though.
Was going to say the same thing. Perhaps GP means "the latter is within the domain of the House," though as pla has noted below, they all fall under the executive branch.
This guy has to become the next president of the USA. He is the only candidate who can revert the downward spiral.
I think you meant "mother fucker" not faggot. If he was fucking your dad, then this might be different.
What, like Guantanamo Bay was going to be closed under President Obama?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I am sure they would be more than happy to ensure this plucky upstart can get ahead and bringing some civilized leadership to the USA. Perhaps they could post some campaign donations to get this started.
I am sure that the above countries could not do any worse a job at running the USA into the ground than the current political class.
-But then again i am someone who believes in national sovereignty, so according to the media that makes me a racist who beats children and rapes puppies.
If the laws violate the Constitution, then the Judiciary will point that out, and those bad laws will be invalidated
+5 Funny?
I think the problem here is that people don't have a good picture of what that 1% really are - they're generally picturing the 1%'ers of the 1%'ers.
The 1% includes athletes, doctors, professors, engineers, people at the top of their field who are very much still working for it.
You knock that down to the 0.01%, and now you're looking at the CEOs with golden parachutes, the winners in the speculation fund manager market, the inherited wealth crowd, etc...
I don't read AC A human right
... is that Gary Johnson will be eliminated by the voters.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Curbing the growing abuse of Executive Powers is one of the more compelling reasons to support Trump. If he gets elected, decades, even centuries of encroaching executive power will be wiped away. A whole new precedent clipping away at executive powers will begin the day he is inagurated.
so called "fair tax" is really stupid zealotry. First I think everyone realizes a flat tax starting from the very first dollar you earn isn't adequately progressive. So what do the "fair" tax apologists do? well they offer a rebate or large deduction so the poorer folks effectively pay less in the end. So now it's a progressive tax. Well if you are going to add in one tier then why not add in more tiers. A "fair" tax is merely a progressive tax with one knee in it. That doesn't make it better. If there is any argument for the first knee then there is an argument for many knees. People pushing this are just having a purity contest.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Still going to write in Zaphod Beeblebrox.
So he does seem to understand how executive orders work or the limits of the presidents powers. kinda like Trump.
Congress is overstepping by legislation when dictating implementation. Happens all the time and is summarily ignored all the time as well. So no, the NSA is not legislated into existence.
Evinrude.
Now, that's a real runoff.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Lol, I have a better chance of becoming president than Gary Johnson does.
Hell, my dog has a better chance, and I don't even own a dog.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I don't understand Libertarian tax policy. A consumption tax is highly regressive and actually discourages economic growth. Just look at the data - European countries with value added taxes and lower corporate tax rates consistently have lower growth rates than the US. Taxing consumption presumably encourages saving usually considered an individual virtue but disastrous to the economy as a whole. Imagine if everyone saved 50% of their income - the economy would tank and we would probably dive into negative interest rates and disinflation. In sort good Individual and business economic policies have little relevance to an immortal government that can print money.
and who keeps the rich from deciding what's legal and what's not?
Libertarian barely get's a note of existence in a election. However with both the Democrat's and GOP having losers running a good option to them might get a chance. Kind of sad the people we have running for the highest office. I personally can't see much good coming from either Clinton or Trump.
Ther is one like him in every country.
I don't think there is a law that says that there must be an NSA.
Wikipedia says that originally the NSA was via a National Security Council Intelligence Directive, which I believe was authorized under the National Security Act of 1947.
It looks like later the National Security Agency Act of 1959 gave official authorization for the President to keep running the NSA but it's all "is authorized to" or "may do this" and I don't see a whole lot that could be strictly interpreted as requiring an NSA.
I'm not a lawyer though. I could be very well be wrong. I think at worst the President would be required to maintain certain Director positions and a minimum amount of surveillance but, certainly, he wouldn't be required to have the NSA spying on everyone.
That's ok. When the jackboots you cheer for come for you, there will be no one left to give a shit.
Libertarians are the fedoras of politics; supreme gentlemen. Truly disgusting.
he might be inclined to keep it. Better to eliminate the domestic data collection than the whole agency. Otherwise, I'm with him. But one question. Where
are those unemployed bureaucrats supposed to find work?
Are you insane?
Trump has shown that if anything he will be the worst president in decades with regards to executive power.
He has outright bemoaned that he can't eliminate journalists he deems "unfair" thus implicitly advocating censorship or worse against a free press.
Claimed he will build a wall and demand that a sovereign foreign country and ally would pay for it.
Claimed he will eliminate remittance to the aforementioned country by its citizens by arbitrarily changing the entire financial system.
Claimed he will force us companies to close their overseas operations.
Will somehow magically round up millions of illegal immigrants and anyone else he deems a threat.
Openly advocated or was complicit in violence at his rallies.
Somehow intends to skirt the U.S. constitution and impose the first ever religious litmus test for immigration.
At one point claimed to be openly advocating a registration database of a specific religion's followers and places of worship.
Advocated for MORE warrantless domestic surveillance.
All these things are what he has openly said he would do or wants to do. None are of course written down on his platform website (other than the wall) because he doesn't actually have any fundamental knowledge of how to govern.
Either you can defend some phenomenon as your "property", or you cannot; justification is your ability to convince others to condone (if not aid) your defense.
Under libertarianism, The Law is the collection of all voluntary contracts; you operate outside The Law at your own peril.
There is nothing magical about the security industry ("police"), the contract-enforcement industry ("police"), or the justification industry ("courts"); it is not necessarily the case that a violently imposed monopoly is the optimal form for these industries (after all, there is no World Government).
As with any other industry (or, indeed, complex system), the forms of these industries are best found through the process of evolution by variation and selection, the most profitable implementation of which is a market of voluntary trade. Competition manifests variation, and consumer choice manifests selective forces; in this way, society as a whole engages in the cooperative process of finding the best solutions (without even requiring participants to be aware that they are doing so), and without imposing any particular idea.
This is important because involuntary interaction induces festering indignation.
To place involuntary interaction at the foundation of your society is to place festering indignation at the foundation of your society; festering indignation leads to more involuntary interaction, which leads to more festering indignation, until there could well be a devastating explosion of violent upheaval.
Behold the world and its history.
A government is just another organization in the market; it is an organization that allocates resources through involuntary trade. In any particular domain of interaction (that is, in any particular jurisdiction), the most powerful such organization is often simply named "Government".
Libertarianism is a rejection of involuntary interaction; libertarianism is a rejection of governments. In a libertarian culture, people would be sensitized to involuntary interaction, quickly identify it, and seek ways to replace it with societal structures that do not involve involuntary interaction.
Unfortunately, libertarian culture is young and weak.
In the same way that many communities around the world struggle to implement representative democracy due to their lack of the 1000 years of cultural development that "The West" experienced in this regard, so too is it the case that even the most "modern" and "civilized" communities of the world struggle to comprehend and implement libertarianism. As libertarian structures begin to emerge, it will become possible to start jettisoning the ancient ideas of authoritarianism, and then the ability of governments to pool and allocate resources won't seem so magical anymore; governments will be viewed as more examples of those strange, unfortunate choices made by generations who, in the aggregate, just didn't know any better.
Duh Law is never bad. That's why we need more LAW ENFORCERS(tm) to force those filthy plebs into compliance.
This. Too many people still believe that just a change of President will make everything better. If the people don't effect a massive replacement of "establishment" politicians with true representatives of the people, any individual or few threats to the establishment will be dealt with as necessary. This is worth billions to a few people calling the shots, getting dirty is what they do.
The gooks are inside the wire people, it's time to call "broken arrow".
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
These babies have 3D scanning ability so they can record video of us having sex in our homes and even scan our brain and monitor thoughts. Here are the patents and whistleblowers backing it all up. The scanning technique is called earth gauss MRI/electron spin resonance and interferometry. They can hit citizens with the scanner transmitters to electronically assault and irradiate. Its the ultimate electronic warfare weapon. drrobertduncan.com obamasweapon.com
My Sig spits 40 cal lead... I ignore ACs - be a grown-up, show who you are.
You are not only stupid, but if you are a gun owner, you are also dangerous to those around you. Please point that thing at your penis and spit out some lead. Fewer genetic versions of you that can exist, the better.
which is just as likely...
People need to drop the idiocy. It's sadly true that the political press and the mainstream media will talk about 3rd party candidates in the US, but the people who show up on Slashdot are supposedly the sort who understand a little math and a little logic.
There is no chance in this universe that Gary Johnson will be President. Period. FULL STOP.
He will get the votes of [1] "Never Trumpers", [2] the few pot-heads that do not support Hillary, [3] people who hate Trump but cannot bring themselves to admit they support Hillary [4] confused morons in Palm Beach county Florida, who will later claim they meant to vote for Hillary but found even the simplest things in life to be too confusing.
Gary Johnson's effect in this election will be one of the following:
(1) split the anti-Hillary vote with Trump, thereby electing Hillary (thus becoming a gutless vote for Hillary)
(2) split the anti-Trump vote with Hillary, thereby electing Trump (thus becoming a gutless vote for Trump)
There is no mathematical path for Gary to win the election.
As adults, we are responsible to think about the EFFECTS and RESULTS of our actions in addition to our intentions. A vote for Johnson, wrapped in claims of good intentions, will have a direct effect of electing Hillary or Donald and will absolutely not elect Gary. People who do not like this FACT should have been more involved in the primaries when these two people were being selected to be the champions for their two teams in the November joust. Actually, for Democrats, you needed to be involved much earlier now that we have seen those docs leaked that showed the DNC insiders picking Hillary last summer. The big lesson for all the voters is this:
(1) Pick a team (Republican or Democrat) that is most-aligned to your views.
(2) Get involved in it in the boring non-election years when all the party insiders are at work and policies are formulated etc.
(3) Work to move your selected party closer to your views as possible and to push-out the corrupt entrenched people you find there. For example: you cannot complain that the DNC rigged their race for Hillary if you were not there fighting for a fair process in the spring and summer of 2015 (The Republicans shockingly and unintentionally avoided that particular mess this time when Trump voters wiped-out the "chosen one" of the elites (Jeb!) and the elites are still reeling, whining, complaining, and some even pushing for Hillary to keep the insurgents from taking over the GOP under the Trump banner).
BOTH parties have some seriously corrupt cronycapitalist/fascist/totalitarian tendencies at play these days and BOTH parties have rich elites getting richer and more powerful from big corrupt government. BOTH need to be cleansed of this toxin that tends to infect big governments and the political parties involved. If you are not doing your part to clean it up, you have no right to complain about it. Are you a Democrat who has no problems with the Clinton Foundation, or a Republican who has no problem with the Bush family machine? If so you are part of the problem.
Quite the opposite. The GOP base supports Trump and hates the GOPe games Romney and his ilk are playing. The GOPe tried to pass amnesty and caved to Obama on important issues. They'd rather the Democrats win because Trump threatens the status quo of funneling money into corporations that support free trade and amnesty.
Trump being ridiculously abusive is the entire point. His policies are so insane that Congress will likely take back all the power that they've given the President, especially the PATRIOT Act and such.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Woosh
Him being a wreck is the point
And he still sounds better than Trump and Clinton.
After all his eliminations, would he eliminate himself from the President's office?
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Yeah, right, and Obama would "eliminate" Guantanamo.
OK truly sad.
Are you insane?
Trump has shown that if anything he will be the worst president in decades with regards to executive power.
He has outright bemoaned that he can't eliminate journalists he deems "unfair" thus implicitly advocating censorship or worse against a free press.
Claimed he will build a wall and demand that a sovereign foreign country and ally would pay for it.
I'm pretty sure you'd support a wall if there were solar cells on top of it. It'd totally power the entire U.S.
But they're not fucking assassinating political candidates or office holders.
The NSA will never engage in political assassination. The CIA doesn't take kindly to other people drinking their shake....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
To render his government powerless.
Yeah, right, the party of Racist Ron Paul will surrender power.
Wake up!
Libertarian is just a Corporatist
Someone with even less chance of winning than Ð'ÐÐÐÐмÐÑ ÐYÑfÑÐн. (Dig at Slashcode's limited character set.)
Including, obviously, the NIH and the CDC. The guy is either an idiot, or incapable of working out what the words coming out of his mouth actually mean. These are serious defects in a politician, no matter what the stripe of his or her policies.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Why is any one even care what he says?
Totally agree, we really need to do presidential year campaigns as a suite of politicians that have a comprehensive set of purposes. It isn't enough to change the President, you need to change Congress as well otherwise you'll get the situation with Republicans and Obama where nothing gets done. Of course, Republicans are doing it as a strategy, considering they have fought every appointment of anything in the Federal government. But I digress. If we align them altogether with a unified messaging then there might be more traction. We put too much focus on a President to fix things when that actually belongs to Congress.
He can get them from the local prison populations
Retired AF intelligence officer here. Feeling like I'm touring Plato's Cave! Gary Johnson's proposal would not strip the military services of their SIGINT capability. He believes the military should have all the resources it needs to defend the country. As others have said, he wants to dismantle that part of the NSA structure that targets the USA, i.e., American citizens. Some discernment please. I saw that interview. The interviewer was unfairly painting Gary as an extremist. He's not. He's a patriot. This is America. Spying on our own citizens in un-American. I'm proud Gary is standing up for freedom.
It is entirely possible that the NSA has contributed to the thwarting of terrorist activity somewhere, sometime(s); even though we may have not heard about it.
Question is: Is this really (President) Gary's plan to have us all THINK the NSA will have gone away; while actually keeping it now covertly?
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Replace it with what? It's perfectly reasonable to talk about reigning-in a rouge agency like the NSA, but it actually provides a valuable and necessary service.
I don't see how anyone can believe that it is possible to have a secret surveillance state agency in any kind of a system that claims to be democratic and free.
as is Juan Perón (fortunately, since 1974)!
Jesus, again with the jackboots.
Right now, Juan Perón and Ferdinand Marcos could run and I couldn't say if they'd be the worst choice.
Might as well be Juan with Hilary running. She thinks she's Evita. All the way down to her policies and actions. Maybe Andrew Lloyd Webber could write a musical about her as well.
Go ahead, throw your vote away.
An EO can't eliminate an agency. It takes Congress to do that.
he'd just be murdered if he tried it.
The USA has never been "free" and is increasingly less so, thanks to our two-party system of idiocy.
Anytime you point out the end result of Libertarian bullshit to a Libertarian, they start protesting that no true Libertarian would argue for the end result of their ideology.
He's a megalomaniacal narcissist. I fully expect you lot to elect him, because you're fucking idiots.
I would have to disagree. Most people vote either Democrat or Republican. A lot of people are straight party voters and will vote for the party over the candidate and a lot of Republicans will still vote for Trump even though they hate him since they would rather a Republican become president than a Democrat. Plus a lot of Republicans who dislike Trump feel that Hillary is much worse than Trump. There may be Republicans who are upset that Trump is their nominee and are upset enough to vote against their party but they would more likely vote for Hillary than a third party candidate since their motive is to vote against Trump and at the same time voting for a candidate that is in a good position to beat Trump which would be the candidate of the other major party. Very few will vote third party since they would be concerned that voting for the third party candidate will be basically like voting for Trump. Even undecided voters will vote for either of the two parties even if they dislike both candidates.
Wrong.
The Dept. of the Treasury can not be eliminated, as it was founded on direction from the Constitution.
The IRS itself, didn't exist until the Civil War (and that should be a very big clue to you as to how legal it is).
The Revenue Act of 1862. Look it up. It's the sole basis for the IRS, and it was unconstitutional as the Constitution REQUIRES taxation to be uniform - which the tax code has never been.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Right now, Cthulhu could run, and I couldn't say if it would be the worst choice.
I have no vote. Both Hillary and The Donald are absolutely unacceptable. I will not vote for either of them under any circumstances.
Since I live in Calipornia, where Hillary is guaranteed 65%+ of the vote even if she spends the rest of the campaign holding Black Masses and sacrificing toddlers to Molech on the steps of the Capitol building, who I vote for is quite irrelevant anyway.
Fuck off bootlicker.
Current system already makes poor stay poor by providing disincentive to work (you lose your benefits faster than your income increases, food stamps can not be saved up to finance a hot dog stand). Replacing it with basic income would give poor more flexibility to rise up and make many workspace regulations unnecessary as people can walk out without fear of destitution.
As for the rich, well the largest companies were going to collapse in 2008 and give smaller car makers like Tesla and others a chance to succeed. Remember what happened instead?
In a truly free market without corporate personhood, people would also go to banks where executives are responsible with their own cars and houses if they lose customer deposits. Think they would still behave as recklessly and take such huge bonuses while the bank fails then?
Do you really think that having the executives financially responsible for the bank's investments will help anyone? Small businesses have like a 70% failure rate (if I remember right, it might even be higher). What person (let alone executive) would risk $100k on those kinds of odds if their own personal livelihood was on the line as well?
Your basic income is a good idea though. Here in Australia we have a basic income for unemployment and various other welfare payments and it works great. Our "poor" are in a much better situation then the average American "poor" person and it does give employees more power. However, workplace regulations are still required as losing your job will land you in a bad situation (going from a decent income to a basic income is a massive shock to most people financially)..
Given that you were exposed to spelling and grammar for years at school, yet remain functionally illiterate, that seems the triumph of hope over expectation.