Johnson is Problematic for Libertarians
Gary Johnson has gained unprecedented coverage for a Libertarian candidate thus far this cycle, but as many libertarians would tell you, there’s plenty to be desired. These are the ten reasons why libertarians shouldn’t vote for Johnson.
1. Hasn’t Mentioned the Non-Aggression Principle
Johnson has gone at least several weeks without mentioning the NAP. While this is likely an oversight, it presents an issue. How can Americans embrace the Libertarian Party if they do not hear about the wonders of the core philosophical tenet? At one recent Johnson event, several interested voters were asked about their position on the NAP.
After the undecideds stated that they were fans of napping, the libertarian questioner clarified that he meant the “NAP” as an abbreviation for the non-aggression principle. At that point, the respondents stated that they preferred that Johnson stick to pertinent issues, rather than “irrelevant water-cooler philosophy.” The questioner then appropriately mocked them as “statist scum,” resulting in them suggesting that “perhaps they should look at another candidate.”
Want to Read This List on One Page? Click Here!
2. Refusal to Indicate a Desire to End Public Roads
One of the most pressing issues for libertarians is ending public roads completely. Of course, any attempt to construct highways using the blood money of taxation is unacceptable. Any other problems of taxes, spending, social policy, or foreign policy come secondary to this pressing need. However, Johnson has been completely absent as a voice on this issue, very rarely addressing the merits of abolishing this form of slavery.
A libertarian correspondent was able to catch up with Johnson to ask him if he would pass a 28th amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the funding of these perilous pathways. Johnson, taken aback at the comment, said “probably not.” Without a doubt, this is one of the most damning comments of his campaign thus far and could cost him a few, perhaps even several, votes in some libertarian conclaves in New Hampshire.
3. Hasn’t Made Blood Oath to Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard
Of course, this issue has been brushed under the rug by the Libertarian establishment. However, has Johnson made it clear that Paul and Rothbard are his only philosophical guidance? Has he suggested that even where they conflict, they are somehow both right? Obviously not. Until Johnson takes these crucial steps, he cannot be considered a libertarian. Any time someone wishes to adorn him or herself with the “Libertarian” banner, being fully committed to these men is just a given.
Alternatively, Johnson actually stated that one of his political role models was Thomas Jefferson. Though Jefferson is a decent representation of modern libertarianism and is both well-known and well-liked by modern Americans, Jefferson was an avowed statist. For example, he once said “A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.” Therefore, Jefferson is in this quote suggesting that there is such a thing as a “just government,” which means he is not credible and should be disowned entirely by libertarians.
4. Something About Baking Cakes, I Guess
This portion of the list is one which necessarily will be spent complaining about Johnson’s stance on “baking the cake.” A clever graphic can be found here and should be shared profusely with hashtags like “#BakeTheCake” or “#MuhCakes.” In spite of thousands of seemingly more prevalent issues, and the fact that Title II will never be repealed, it is important to speak on this issue extensively. It should be ignored that Rand Paul (also a statist) nearly ended his political career for no reason by daring to have an honest discussion on the merit of public accommodations laws.
Though no commentators or onlookers were able to appreciate the nuance of Paul’s position and understand that he was not racist, things would definitely be different if Johnson took aim at such laws this time. Although many of the conservative groups supporting so-called “religious freedom” laws continually insist that their support is not based on philosophical libertarianism, and is rather because they view gay people as not deserving the same protections as racial minorities, we know that they are just supporting property rights like true libertarians.
5. Has Raised the Profile of the Libertarian Party
Much more important than communicating libertarian ideas and expanding the brand is staying philosophically pure while keeping the ideology as fringe as possible. That way, libertarians can always complain when they don’t win elections, and nothing changes. By having a presidential ticket of former two-term governors, the Libertarian Party runs a serious risk of adding credibility to its brand and winning electoral votes. This should be the last thing the LP ought to be trying to do.
The Libertarian Party instead needs to focus on the basics, like having nationally-televised debates on the efficacy of drivers’ licenses, selling heroin to minors, and questioning American entry into World War I. Without these thorough philosophical debates which most Americans don’t care to hear about, how will libertarians ever make a difference in American politics? Until then, libertarians must continue to call out every non-libertarian, like Johnson, Weld, Rand Paul, Julie Borowski, Austin Petersen, and pretty much anyone else claiming to be a libertarian. After all, calling oneself a libertarian is a sure sign that someone isn’t a libertarian. That is, unless someone says he or she isn’t a libertarian, which also means he or she isn’t a libertarian.