Gary Johnson suing to be included in debates (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

tim's shown himself to be an elitist who thinks few others are capable of his brilliance. Iirc, he's even against every citizen in America having a vote. No big shock to see him take this stance, as sad and disgusting as it is.

OK, briefly, because I won't have time to discuss this later:1. I am not brilliant. I am an elitist, I suppose, because I believe that we would be better off if only informed people made political decisions. But anyone is capable of being informed, if they want to. A better word to describe me is "pluralist."2. I am not against every citizen having a vote. Don't know where you get that. I do believe it's reasonable to show some form of ID at the voting booth. But some of these other attempts, mostly by Republicans, to restrict voting are terrible and I am opposed to almost all of them. 3. But the accusation that I am in favor of the status quo is largely correct. I believe that a two party system is preferable to a mulit-party, parliamentary system. Simply put: two parties means the extremists are weeded out, and it is also difficult for populism (my main enemy) to gain too large a foothold. Not impossible, but difficult. 4. When I wrote that most of the people who are watching the debate know nothing about the two candidates, that was an overstatement. What I meant to say is that they know far less than you and I do (anyone reading this post). They are not to be confused with the majority who doesn't know, doesn't care, and won't vote. The people I'm talking about think they know, but in reality all they have is the most superficial understanding possible.

If you think we'd be better off having only "informed people" making political decisions, why let every citizen have a vote? If you're for every citizen having a voice, why refuse to allow them to hear more than two opinions?

While I do believe that the more knowledgeable the voters, the better off we are, there's no way to enforce such a rule. Every adult citizen has a right to vote, and whom am I (or anyone else) to challenge their knowledge? I can only hope for the best. But I certainly don't believe in exclusion based on these grounds. I would encourage those who don't care or don't know very much not to vote, if I could. I won't force them to do anything. For the majority of uninformed voters who watch the debates, they provide a primer, the equivalent of cliffnotes on the two primary candidates.

 

[humpback]

This really isn't about "winning" the debate, or Johnson (or any other candidate) winning the election. It's about changing the status quo, where the two turds get up their with their canned answers, talking points, and finger pointing, and actually getting another perspective and having them discuss other issues.

Seriously, is there anyone here who doesn't think they can basically write the script for these things right now? Do you (Tim) really think that people should be making their voting decision based on what happens in these debates anyway?

 

[timschochet]

I think you don't like it because you seem to have a problem with anything that takes away from business/money being the only voice and might give a voice to the people.

One of the main themes of the argument being made against my position in this thread is that there is no major difference between the two parties, that they both represent "corporate interests" working against the "people". While I recognize that this has always been a popular idea in this country, especially in progressive circles, I strongly disagree with the premise.

 

[timschochet]

This really isn't about "winning" the debate, or Johnson (or any other candidate) winning the election. It's about changing the status quo, where the two turds get up their with their canned answers, talking points, and finger pointing, and actually getting another perspective and having them discuss other issues.

Seriously, is there anyone here who doesn't think they can basically write the script for these things right now? Do you (Tim) really think that people should be making their voting decision based on what happens in these debates anyway?

I want the status quo. I know it's more exciting to go off script, but the script is necessary for the uninformed to become informed. Sure it's boring for an algebra teacher to deliver the same lessons, one day after another, month after month, year after year, but there's only so many ways to teach algebra. As to your bolded question, the answer is no. I wish more voters would base their choices on a lot of reading, and exposure to the candidates, etc. But the fact is that millions of Americans do base their decision on the debate. So that's what we have to deal with.

 

[NCCommish]

I think you don't like it because you seem to have a problem with anything that takes away from business/money being the only voice and might give a voice to the people.

One of the main themes of the argument being made against my position in this thread is that there is no major difference between the two parties, that they both represent "corporate interests" working against the "people". While I recognize that this has always been a popular idea in this country, especially in progressive circles, I strongly disagree with the premise.

What fantasy universe do you live in? Seen any unicorns lately?

 

[humpback]

This really isn't about "winning" the debate, or Johnson (or any other candidate) winning the election. It's about changing the status quo, where the two turds get up their with their canned answers, talking points, and finger pointing, and actually getting another perspective and having them discuss other issues.

Seriously, is there anyone here who doesn't think they can basically write the script for these things right now? Do you (Tim) really think that people should be making their voting decision based on what happens in these debates anyway?

I want the status quo. I know it's more exciting to go off script, but the script is necessary for the uninformed to become informed. Sure it's boring for an algebra teacher to deliver the same lessons, one day after another, month after month, year after year, but there's only so many ways to teach algebra. As to your bolded question, the answer is no. I wish more voters would base their choices on a lot of reading, and exposure to the candidates, etc. But the fact is that millions of Americans do base their decision on the debate. So that's what we have to deal with.

Here's where we completely disagree- you think these debates are informative, I think they are essentially a dog and pony show. Most of what we are going to hear are half-truths, outright lies, and pandering. Very little of it has any chance at becoming reality, although many of these "uninformed" people will fall for the crap one of them are going to spew up there. I suppose technically they are informative, but it isn't the type of information that helps to select the best candidate IMO.The fact is, millions of Americans base their decision on the letter next to their name, their religion, skin color, how well spoken they are, who they would like to have a beer with, who has better/worse/more commercials, or any number of dumb reasons. That doesn't mean we should encourage it- the debates will actually be more meaningful and informative if you have another person up there that forces them to look at things from another perspective and to discuss things they would not have otherwise talked about.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

point being that even those that seem to have no chance of winning, can actually win. Thus making Tim's argument invalid. Plus Perot still did take a fair amount of votes and had he not been in at all, Bush likely would've taken a majority of them and won.

I don't think that tim ever argued for excluding someone polling at 25%. And I don't see any principled way of including anyone who can sway the election. Nader arguably swayed the election despite getting under 5%. The rule being challenged excludes anyone who can't poll over 15% around a month from the election.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Again, unless we go back to 1960 or something, there's just little evidence that even "winning the debates" really moves anyone's poll numbers. It might be Romney's last theoretical shot to do something, but I'm not sure I even agree with that, because there's always the possibility that his campaign figures out some brilliant national ad campaign in the last month. Not anything I would bet on, but if Romney has the message, he doesn't need the debates to get that out. He has the money to get it out anyway.

 

[timschochet]

I think you don't like it because you seem to have a problem with anything that takes away from business/money being the only voice and might give a voice to the people.

One of the main themes of the argument being made against my position in this thread is that there is no major difference between the two parties, that they both represent "corporate interests" working against the "people". While I recognize that this has always been a popular idea in this country, especially in progressive circles, I strongly disagree with the premise.

What fantasy universe do you live in? Seen any unicorns lately?

Don't get me wrong. There are more important similarities between the two political parties than there are differences- but these are similarities that every American should like: a belief in our system of government, in the constitution, in essential individual and libertarian rights (I use the term "libertarian" here in the sense of how the Founding Fathers used it, not the modern definitition.) Both parties have at their foundation classic liberalism. No anarchists, socialists, communists, or fascists are ever going to gain a foothold in this country, despite the rhetoric being spread, unless there is some kind of unforseen catastrophe (and let's hope there won't be.)But within those parameters there ARE essential differences between the two parties: in economics, the Democrats favor a larger role for government than the Republicans do, generally speaking. For social issues, the Republicans favor a larger role for government than the Democrats do, generally speaking. In foreign affairs, there are subtle yet important differences between the two sides. And so forth.

 

[timschochet]

Again, unless we go back to 1960 or something, there's just little evidence that even "winning the debates" really moves anyone's poll numbers. It might be Romney's last theoretical shot to do something, but I'm not sure I even agree with that, because there's always the possibility that his campaign figures out some brilliant national ad campaign in the last month. Not anything I would bet on, but if Romney has the message, he doesn't need the debates to get that out. He has the money to get it out anyway.

If I were to change my mind on allowing Johnson, this would be the best argument to convince me to do so. Because I tend to agree that recent history has shown these debates really don't impact the results. However, I'm not convinced that, just because they haven't, that doesn't mean they couldn't.

 

[ren hoek]

Don't get me wrong. There are more important similarities between the two political parties than there are differences- but these are similarities that every American should like: a belief in our system of government, in the constitution, in essential individual and libertarian rights

 

[Brady Marino]

Don't get me wrong. There are more important similarities between the two political parties than there are differences- but these are similarities that every American should like: a belief in our system of government, in the constitution, in essential individual and libertarian rights

 

[timschochet]

Don't get me wrong. There are more important similarities between the two political parties than there are differences- but these are similarities that every American should like: a belief in our system of government, in the constitution, in essential individual and libertarian rights

If you have a specific criticism of this statement, I'm willing to defend it.

 

[Sarnoff]

I repeat, Tim's one of the worst human beings that's ever lived.

 

[Brady Marino]

Don't get me wrong. There are more important similarities between the two political parties than there are differences- but these are similarities that every American should like: a belief in our system of government, in the constitution, in essential individual and libertarian rights

If you have a specific criticism of this statement, I'm willing to defend it.

My mother always told me to not talk to the crazy people.

 

[timschochet]

Don't get me wrong. There are more important similarities between the two political parties than there are differences- but these are similarities that every American should like: a belief in our system of government, in the constitution, in essential individual and libertarian rights

If you have a specific criticism of this statement, I'm willing to defend it.

My mother always told me to not talk to the crazy people.

But apparently it's OK to include them in debates?

 

[roadkill1292]

I repeat, Tim's one of the worst human beings that's ever lived.

That boy's not right in the head.

 

[B-Deep]

Don't get me wrong. There are more important similarities between the two political parties than there are differences- but these are similarities that every American should like: a belief in our system of government, in the constitution, in essential individual and libertarian rights

If you have a specific criticism of this statement, I'm willing to defend it.

My mother always told me to not talk to the crazy people.

But apparently it's OK to include them in debates?

the sanity of either of the 2 major candidates is open to debate

 

[ren hoek]

I repeat, Tim's one of the worst human beings that's ever lived.

I'm tired of every political thread boiling down to everyone else explaining how the world works to Tim. He is to politics what LHUCKS was to college football. He's usually 10,000% wrong and his defense is usually some weak plea to history, or empty rhetoric about how government is working for us. I don't dislike Tim as a person but he's a complete waste of time in these threads and I'm done. http://i.imgur.com/9QHk7.png

 

[B-Deep]

This really isn't about "winning" the debate, or Johnson (or any other candidate) winning the election. It's about changing the status quo, where the two turds get up their with their canned answers, talking points, and finger pointing, and actually getting another perspective and having them discuss other issues.

Seriously, is there anyone here who doesn't think they can basically write the script for these things right now? Do you (Tim) really think that people should be making their voting decision based on what happens in these debates anyway?

I want the status quo. I know it's more exciting to go off script, but the script is necessary for the uninformed to become informed. Sure it's boring for an algebra teacher to deliver the same lessons, one day after another, month after month, year after year, but there's only so many ways to teach algebra. As to your bolded question, the answer is no. I wish more voters would base their choices on a lot of reading, and exposure to the candidates, etc. But the fact is that millions of Americans do base their decision on the debate. So that's what we have to deal with.

so allowing minor candidates in could get them substantial chunks of the votewhich the parties fear

so they conspire to prevent it, because where they are alike is neither wants to share more power than they have two

and you are ok with two parties limiting the choice of millions of americans simply so they can retain their own power

 

[roadkill1292]

I repeat, Tim's one of the worst human beings that's ever lived.

I'm tired of every political thread boiling down to everyone else explaining how the world works to Tim. He is to politics what LHUCKS was to college football. He's usually 10,000% wrong and his defense is usually some weak plea to history, or empty rhetoric about how government is working for us. I don't dislike Tim as a person but he's a complete waste of time in these threads and I'm done. http://i.imgur.com/9QHk7.png

He's not right in his head either.

 

[NCCommish]

Don't get me wrong. There are more important similarities between the two political parties than there are differences- but these are similarities that every American should like: a belief in our system of government, in the constitution, in essential individual and libertarian rights

If you have a specific criticism of this statement, I'm willing to defend it.

Really Tim you're fishing right? Please tell me you're fishing. I find it hard to believe that a reasonably intelligent individual like yourself believes much of anything you wrote there.

 

[timschochet]

Don't get me wrong. There are more important similarities between the two political parties than there are differences- but these are similarities that every American should like: a belief in our system of government, in the constitution, in essential individual and libertarian rights

If you have a specific criticism of this statement, I'm willing to defend it.

Really Tim you're fishing right? Please tell me you're fishing. I find it hard to believe that a reasonably intelligent individual like yourself believes much of anything you wrote there.

I'm not right in the head.

 

[timschochet]

I repeat, Tim's one of the worst human beings that's ever lived.

I'm tired of every political thread boiling down to everyone else explaining how the world works to Tim. He is to politics what LHUCKS was to college football. He's usually 10,000% wrong and his defense is usually some weak plea to history, or empty rhetoric about how government is working for us. I don't dislike Tim as a person but he's a complete waste of time in these threads and I'm done. http://i.imgur.com/9QHk7.png

Oh no you dint.

 

[NCCommish]

Don't get me wrong. There are more important similarities between the two political parties than there are differences- but these are similarities that every American should like: a belief in our system of government, in the constitution, in essential individual and libertarian rights

If you have a specific criticism of this statement, I'm willing to defend it.

Really Tim you're fishing right? Please tell me you're fishing. I find it hard to believe that a reasonably intelligent individual like yourself believes much of anything you wrote there.

I'm not right in the head.

Well I don't think you're crazy or stupid. But I have to admit you make it hard sometimes.

 

[timschochet]

Look guys, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't respect your opinions. (Well, maybe not Ren's... )

But what's with all the insults?

 

[timschochet]

Don't get me wrong. There are more important similarities between the two political parties than there are differences- but these are similarities that every American should like: a belief in our system of government, in the constitution, in essential individual and libertarian rights

If you have a specific criticism of this statement, I'm willing to defend it.

Really Tim you're fishing right? Please tell me you're fishing. I find it hard to believe that a reasonably intelligent individual like yourself believes much of anything you wrote there.

I'm not right in the head.

Well I don't think you're crazy or stupid. But I have to admit you make it hard sometimes.

I don't think I wrote anything especially controversial. I do believe that most Democrats and Republicans, including the leadership of both parties, sincerely believe in freedom, the Constitution, our system of government. Why is this so absurd?

 

[NCCommish]

Look guys, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't respect your opinions. (Well, maybe not Ren's... )But what's with all the insults?

I'm not trying to be insulting. I am just trying to figure out how a guy like yourself seems so absolutely blinded to the reality of the system he finds himself in.

 

[B-Deep]

Look guys, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't respect your opinions. (Well, maybe not Ren's... )But what's with all the insults?

insults are over the lineand i am no expertbut a self professed libetarian saying the best thing for the country is two established political machines excluding all new ideas to hold on to their own power seems a little crazy

 

[timschochet]

Look guys, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't respect your opinions. (Well, maybe not Ren's... )But what's with all the insults?

insults are over the lineand i am no expertbut a self professed libetarian saying the best thing for the country is two established political machines excluding all new ideas to hold on to their own power seems a little crazy

That's not what I'm saying. I don't want the two parties to exclude all new ideas. I don't believe that a Presidential debate is the proper venue to introduce those ideas. Also, I am not a libertarian in the current meaning of the term, as best as I understand it.

 

[timschochet]

Look guys, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't respect your opinions. (Well, maybe not Ren's... )But what's with all the insults?

I'm not trying to be insulting. I am just trying to figure out how a guy like yourself seems so absolutely blinded to the reality of the system he finds himself in.

I wasn't referring to you. Also, I'm not quite as blinded as you think I am. I am arguing two points:1. Despite it's weaknesses (most of which you've aptly pointed out) I still find the two party system to be preferrable to all of the others. 2. I would love to see new ideas absorbed by the two parties. But I don't believe the way to accomplish that is by adding people to national debates.

 

[NCCommish]

Look guys, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't respect your opinions. (Well, maybe not Ren's... )But what's with all the insults?

I'm not trying to be insulting. I am just trying to figure out how a guy like yourself seems so absolutely blinded to the reality of the system he finds himself in.

I wasn't referring to you. Also, I'm not quite as blinded as you think I am. I am arguing two points:1. Despite it's weaknesses (most of which you've aptly pointed out) I still find the two party system to be preferrable to all of the others. 2. I would love to see new ideas absorbed by the two parties. But I don't believe the way to accomplish that is by adding people to national debates.

Well see that's a bit more reasonable. I disagree but it doesn't seem quite so head in the clouds.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I'm just interested in how our self-described libertarians justify this tactic by Johnson. Isn't his gambit here pretty much the anti-thesis of what a libertarian would do?

Let me explain.

The CPD is a private, (non-profit, non-stock) corporation. The RNC and DNC are private associations organized under federal election law. Gary Johnson's theory is that he should have some form of legal recourse if these three private organizations decide that it is in their best interests to exclude him from the debate.

Think of it this way. What if I told you that LiveEvents were holding a big music festival. And they've got Lady Gaga, and Madonna, and Green Day, and the Bieber. And they're thinking about inviting Ted Nugent. Only Lady Gaga and Madonna and Green Day and all the other artists who don't shoot deer with crossbows say, "Yeah, I'm not playing if Nugent plays." Would a libertarian really consider that an antitrust violation? Maybe he'd think less of Lady Gaga and Billie Joe. And you're welcome to think less of "Dumbama and RMoney." But I'd like to think that a thoughtful libertarian would think less of the Nooge if he tried to sue.

His theory is that this type of private agreement violates the Sherman Act. Now, there are some pro-antitrust regulation "libertarians", but not many. Most libertarians believe that freedom of contract is sacrosanct. That government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with a private contract between two associations or two corporations or two people. But wait, it gets weirder. Most libertarians believe that the modern interpretation of commerce and attendant commerce clause of the United States consitution is ridiculously overbroad, and is, in fact, a vehicle that has allowed the government to gain nearly plenary powers. This, they argue, is a bad thing. Yet Johnson's claim relies upon a construction of "commerce" (or "trade") that is so strained that it would make the most ardent defender of Wickard blush. As a final trick, Johnson does not argue that the CPD may not place any restraint on participation of the debates, he simply argues that the restraint they choose should include him and exclude others (such as Roseanne). And that this criteria should be enforced by a government body.

The entire strategy is just baffling coming from a self-professed "libertarian." Citizens Unitedwas a "libertarian" decision. If Gary Johnson wants a greater voice in the election, he can find himself some Koch brothers or a Sheldon Adelson. If one television show won't have him on, he can do what Perot did and buy his own ad time. Or have his own debate. If he feels that the system as it is now actually limits his ability to do so, then I'd be interested in hearing his "libertarian" solution to the problem.

 

[NCCommish]

I'm just interested in how our self-described libertarians justify this tactic by Johnson. Isn't his gambit here pretty much the anti-thesis of what a libertarian would do?

Let me explain.

The CPD is a private, (non-profit, non-stock) corporation. The RNC and DNC are private associations organized under federal election law. Gary Johnson's theory is that he should have some form of legal recourse if these three private organizations decide that it is in their best interests to exclude him from the debate.

Think of it this way. What if I told you that LiveEvents were holding a big music festival. And they've got Lady Gaga, and Madonna, and Green Day, and the Bieber. And they're thinking about inviting Ted Nugent. Only Lady Gaga and Madonna and Green Day and all the other artists who don't shoot deer with crossbows say, "Yeah, I'm not playing if Nugent plays." Would a libertarian really consider that an antitrust violation? Maybe he'd think less of Lady Gaga and Billie Joe. And you're welcome to think less of "Dumbama and RMoney." But I'd like to think that a thoughtful libertarian would think less of the Nooge if he tried to sue.

His theory is that this type of private agreement violates the Sherman Act. Now, there are some pro-antitrust regulation "libertarians", but not many. Most libertarians believe that freedom of contract is sacrosanct. That government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with a private contract between two associations or two corporations or two people. But wait, it gets weirder. Most libertarians believe that the modern interpretation of commerce and attendant commerce clause of the United States consitution is ridiculously overbroad, and is, in fact, a vehicle that has allowed the government to gain nearly plenary powers. This, they argue, is a bad thing. Yet Johnson's claim relies upon a construction of "commerce" (or "trade") that is so strained that it would make the most ardent defender of Wickard blush. As a final trick, Johnson does not argue that the CPD may not place any restraint on participation of the debates, he simply argues that the restraint they choose should include him and exclude others (such as Roseanne). And that this criteria should be enforced by a government body.

The entire strategy is just baffling coming from a self-professed "libertarian." Citizens Unitedwas a "libertarian" decision. If Gary Johnson wants a greater voice in the election, he can find himself some Koch brothers or a Sheldon Adelson. If one television show won't have him on, he can do what Perot did and buy his own ad time. Or have his own debate. If he feels that the system as it is now actually limits his ability to do so, then I'd be interested in hearing his "libertarian" solution to the problem.

He's a moderate Republican not a Libertarian. Once again they went for name not philosophy.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Sorry, Gary. The market has spoken.

 

[B-Deep]

Look guys, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't respect your opinions. (Well, maybe not Ren's... )But what's with all the insults?

insults are over the lineand i am no expertbut a self professed libetarian saying the best thing for the country is two established political machines excluding all new ideas to hold on to their own power seems a little crazy

That's not what I'm saying. I don't want the two parties to exclude all new ideas. I don't believe that a Presidential debate is the proper venue to introduce those ideas. Also, I am not a libertarian in the current meaning of the term, as best as I understand it.

yet you freely admit millions of americas get their knowledge only from the debateit is confusingwhat IS the proper forum?

 

[B-Deep]

Look guys, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't respect your opinions. (Well, maybe not Ren's... )But what's with all the insults?

I'm not trying to be insulting. I am just trying to figure out how a guy like yourself seems so absolutely blinded to the reality of the system he finds himself in.

I wasn't referring to you. Also, I'm not quite as blinded as you think I am. I am arguing two points:1. Despite it's weaknesses (most of which you've aptly pointed out) I still find the two party system to be preferrable to all of the others. 2. I would love to see new ideas absorbed by the two parties. But I don't believe the way to accomplish that is by adding people to national debates.

why is 2 the magic #had anyone had a democracy like ours with exactly 3 parties?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

yet you freely admit millions of americas get their knowledge only from the debateit is confusingwhat IS the proper forum?

I doubt that's true at all.

 

[B-Deep]

yet you freely admit millions of americas get their knowledge only from the debateit is confusingwhat IS the proper forum?

I doubt that's true at all.

tim seemed to say it, unless i misunderstood

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

yet you freely admit millions of americas get their knowledge only from the debateit is confusingwhat IS the proper forum?

I doubt that's true at all.

tim seemed to say it, unless i misunderstood

Yeah, I doubt tim is right.

 

[timschochet]

Look guys, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't respect your opinions. (Well, maybe not Ren's... )But what's with all the insults?

insults are over the lineand i am no expertbut a self professed libetarian saying the best thing for the country is two established political machines excluding all new ideas to hold on to their own power seems a little crazy

That's not what I'm saying. I don't want the two parties to exclude all new ideas. I don't believe that a Presidential debate is the proper venue to introduce those ideas. Also, I am not a libertarian in the current meaning of the term, as best as I understand it.

yet you freely admit millions of americas get their knowledge only from the debateit is confusingwhat IS the proper forum?

Let me return to the algebra analogy: suppose you noticed mistakes in an introductory algebra textbook, and you figured out certain changes that could be made that would make the textbook much easier to understand. Would your next step be to invade a junior high school algebra classroom, interrupt the teacher, tell her that the textbook is incorrect? All you would do is confuse the students who are trying to learn something. Obviously, that is not the solution.Historically, the way that new ideas have been absorbed into the two parties is through writing- journals which are read by political thinkers. Think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, the Reason Foundation, the Cato Institute. I could give you plenty of historical examples, but the two most famous are probably the FDR Administration absorbing socialist ideas of the 1920s (and discarding the extremist ones) while ennacting the New Deal, and the Reagan Administration absorbing the "trickle down" ideas of 1970s conservative economists. They didn't absorb these ideas through national debates. They got them by reading journals and paying attention to the think tanks. That's how it gets done, and I think it's a good system.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Let me return to the algebra analogy: suppose you noticed mistakes in an introductory algebra textbook, and you figured out certain changes that could be made that would make the textbook much easier to understand. Would your next step be to invade a junior high school algebra classroom, interrupt the teacher, tell her that the textbook is incorrect? All you would do is confuse the students who are trying to learn something. Obviously, that is not the solution.Historically, the way that new ideas have been absorbed into the two parties is through writing- journals which are read by political thinkers. Think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, the Reason Foundation, the Cato Institute. I could give you plenty of historical examples, but the two most famous are probably the FDR Administration absorbing socialist ideas of the 1920s (and discarding the extremist ones) while ennacting the New Deal, and the Reagan Administration absorbing the "trickle down" ideas of 1970s conservative economists. They didn't absorb these ideas through national debates. They got them by reading journals and paying attention to the think tanks. That's how it gets done, and I think it's a good system.

Oh, sweet Jesus.I knew those crazy kids in Selma should have been writing in scholarly journals. Also, way to reduce the American labor movement to a few socialist articles from the 20s.

 

[Moe.]

Look guys, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't respect your opinions. (Well, maybe not Ren's... )But what's with all the insults?

I'm not trying to be insulting. I am just trying to figure out how a guy like yourself seems so absolutely blinded to the reality of the system he finds himself in.

I wasn't referring to you. Also, I'm not quite as blinded as you think I am. I am arguing two points:1. Despite it's weaknesses (most of which you've aptly pointed out) I still find the two party system to be preferrable to all of the others. 2. I would love to see new ideas absorbed by the two parties. But I don't believe the way to accomplish that is by adding people to national debates.

Adding someone to the debates isn't going to have any impact whatsoever on the number of major political parties in this country. The two-party system is inevitable with winner take all representation. If you would like to see new ideas absorbed by the major parties then wouldn't you at least like to see them have to confront those ideas publicly? Right now they don't even have to acknowledge new ideas.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm just interested in how our self-described libertarians justify this tactic by Johnson. Isn't his gambit here pretty much the anti-thesis of what a libertarian would do?

Let me explain.

The CPD is a private, (non-profit, non-stock) corporation. The RNC and DNC are private associations organized under federal election law. Gary Johnson's theory is that he should have some form of legal recourse if these three private organizations decide that it is in their best interests to exclude him from the debate.

Think of it this way. What if I told you that LiveEvents were holding a big music festival. And they've got Lady Gaga, and Madonna, and Green Day, and the Bieber. And they're thinking about inviting Ted Nugent. Only Lady Gaga and Madonna and Green Day and all the other artists who don't shoot deer with crossbows say, "Yeah, I'm not playing if Nugent plays." Would a libertarian really consider that an antitrust violation? Maybe he'd think less of Lady Gaga and Billie Joe. And you're welcome to think less of "Dumbama and RMoney." But I'd like to think that a thoughtful libertarian would think less of the Nooge if he tried to sue.

His theory is that this type of private agreement violates the Sherman Act. Now, there are some pro-antitrust regulation "libertarians", but not many. Most libertarians believe that freedom of contract is sacrosanct. That government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with a private contract between two associations or two corporations or two people. But wait, it gets weirder. Most libertarians believe that the modern interpretation of commerce and attendant commerce clause of the United States consitution is ridiculously overbroad, and is, in fact, a vehicle that has allowed the government to gain nearly plenary powers. This, they argue, is a bad thing. Yet Johnson's claim relies upon a construction of "commerce" (or "trade") that is so strained that it would make the most ardent defender of Wickard blush. As a final trick, Johnson does not argue that the CPD may not place any restraint on participation of the debates, he simply argues that the restraint they choose should include him and exclude others (such as Roseanne). And that this criteria should be enforced by a government body.

The entire strategy is just baffling coming from a self-professed "libertarian." Citizens Unitedwas a "libertarian" decision. If Gary Johnson wants a greater voice in the election, he can find himself some Koch brothers or a Sheldon Adelson. If one television show won't have him on, he can do what Perot did and buy his own ad time. Or have his own debate. If he feels that the system as it is now actually limits his ability to do so, then I'd be interested in hearing his "libertarian" solution to the problem.

Assume for the sake of argument that Johnson's claim is likely meritorious under existing law.Should he refrain from asserting it because his claim would be frivolous in a world with the kind of libertarian laws he favors?

Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate in 1996 and 2000, might answer in the affirmative. He spent a lot of money trying to turn down federal matching funds because he didn't believe in them on principle.

But I think a lot of people would answer in the negative. Is it really so different from somebody who claims the home mortgage interest deduction on his tax return even though he's philosophically opposed to it?

I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with (a) taking full advantage of the law as it currently exists, while (b) supporting the repeal or amendment of that very same law.

If Gary Johnson opposes Section 1 of the Sherman Act but nonetheless believes that it entitles him to participate in the debates, I don't think he's acting hypocritically by using it to try to join the debates.

(I don't think Johnson's claim is meritorious under existing law, but that may be a separate issue from the philosophical point you raise.)

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Assume for the sake of argument that Johnson's claim is likely meritorious under existing law.Should he refrain from asserting it because his claim would be frivolous in a world with the kind of libertarian laws he favors?Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate in 1996 and 2000, might answer in the affirmative. He spent a lot of money trying to turn down federal matching funds because he didn't believe in them on principle.But I think a lot of people would answer in the negative. Is it really so different from somebody who claims the home mortgage interest deduction on his tax return even though he's philosophically opposed to it?I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with (a) taking full advantage of the law as it currently exists, while (b) supporting the repeal or amendment of that very same law.If Gary Johnson opposes Section 1 of the Sherman Act but nonetheless believes that it entitles him to participate in the debates, I don't think he's acting hypocritically by using it to try to join the debates.(I don't think Johnson's claim is meritorious under existing law, but that may be a separate issue from the philosophical point you raise.)

I think there's a notable distinction. Johnson is not suing the government. He's suing private actors. And if he thinks Section 1 of the Sherman Act is wrong because it interferes with the rights of private parties to contract, then yes I think it's hypocritical to use that to sue private actors. It would be like me supporting gay marriage, but not for this one gay couple that I think are real a******s.

 

[Sarnoff]

http://i.imgur.com/9QHk7.png

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Is it really so different from somebody who claims the home mortgage interest deduction on his tax return even though he's philosophically opposed to it?

I think there's a notable distinction. Johnson is not suing the government. He's suing private actors. And if he thinks Section 1 of the Sherman Act is wrong because it interferes with the rights of private parties to contract, then yes I think it's hypocritical to use that to sue private actors.

Okay, that's a good argument.But how about this? Johnson knows that Romney and Obama both support antitrust regulation of the sort that Johnson's lawsuit seeks to enforce. So this would be like supporting gay marriage in general, but challenging the marriage of a particular gay couple known to oppose interracial marriage. A "taste of their own medicine" sort of thing.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Let me return to the algebra analogy: suppose you noticed mistakes in an introductory algebra textbook, and you figured out certain changes that could be made that would make the textbook much easier to understand. Would your next step be to invade a junior high school algebra classroom, interrupt the teacher, tell her that the textbook is incorrect? All you would do is confuse the students who are trying to learn something. Obviously, that is not the solution.Historically, the way that new ideas have been absorbed into the two parties is through writing- journals which are read by political thinkers. Think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, the Reason Foundation, the Cato Institute. I could give you plenty of historical examples, but the two most famous are probably the FDR Administration absorbing socialist ideas of the 1920s (and discarding the extremist ones) while ennacting the New Deal, and the Reagan Administration absorbing the "trickle down" ideas of 1970s conservative economists. They didn't absorb these ideas through national debates. They got them by reading journals and paying attention to the think tanks. That's how it gets done, and I think it's a good system.

Oh, sweet Jesus.I knew those crazy kids in Selma should have been writing in scholarly journals. Also, way to reduce the American labor movement to a few socialist articles from the 20s.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Is it really so different from somebody who claims the home mortgage interest deduction on his tax return even though he's philosophically opposed to it?

I think there's a notable distinction. Johnson is not suing the government. He's suing private actors. And if he thinks Section 1 of the Sherman Act is wrong because it interferes with the rights of private parties to contract, then yes I think it's hypocritical to use that to sue private actors.

Okay, that's a good argument.But how about this? Johnson knows that Romney and Obama both support antitrust regulation of the sort that Johnson's lawsuit seeks to enforce. So this would be like supporting gay marriage in general, but challenging the marriage of a particular gay couple known to oppose interracial marriage. A "taste of their own medicine" sort of thing.

You do try hard. And we're still assuming that the claim is meritorious, right? So I can't take issue with your assumption that Romney would support this expansive a reading of the Sherman Act? Damn your confounding hypotheticals!I still don't really subscribe to "taste of your own medicine" arguments. It's one thing to say, "hey, Adam and Steve, remember how you felt when Rick Santorum talked about your wedding? Lay off me and Beyonce." It's another to start trying to revoke their marriage license.

 

[Rayderr]

Just got another phone survey. My options were 1. Barack Obama, 2. Mitt Romney, 3. Someone Else, 4. Undecided. Can't figure out why Johnson can't show up in the polls.