Jo Jorgensen Wins Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination

by Maddog Sun May 24, 2020 4:43 am

The Libertarian National Convention, meeting via Zoom, has chosen Jo Jorgensen as their nominee for President of the United States. After four rounds of voting she becomes the first woman in Libertarian Party history to win the nomination for President and now the only women in the race for President among the 3 major parties.

Dr. Jo Jorgensen currently is a Senior Lecturer in Psychology at Clemson University. She holds a Ph.D in Industrial/Organizational Psychology (Clemson 2002) and has taught full-time since 2006. She graduated in 1979 from Baylor University with a B.S. in Psychology and in 1980 from Southern Methodist University with an M.B.A.

She's probably too smart to be President.

by Maddog Sun May 24, 2020 2:19 pm

by Original Quill Sun May 24, 2020 3:47 pm

Is she willing to place her slaves in a blind trust?

by Maddog Sun May 24, 2020 4:55 pm

by Maddog Sun May 24, 2020 8:38 pm

by Maddog Sun May 24, 2020 9:42 pm

https://reason.com/2020/05/24/libertarian-party-picks-spike-cohen-as-its-vice-presidential-candidate/

And an anarchist for VP..

Probably not the brightest move.

by Original Quill Sun May 24, 2020 10:54 pm

As my signature notes, libertarians are anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. Not too far apart.

That's why I inquired about Jorgensen's slaves.

by Ben Reilly Sun May 24, 2020 11:37 pm

Maddog wrote:

Sounds like a really great candidate to waste your vote on!

Hold on -- she doesn't believe that voting is a collective use of unnecessary force against individuals, does she?

by Maddog Mon May 25, 2020 4:20 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Sounds like a really great candidate to waste your vote on!

Hold on -- she doesn't believe that voting is a collective use of unnecessary force against individuals, does she?

I like wasting my vote on the best candidate and human.

I'm funny like that.

by Original Quill Mon May 25, 2020 4:54 pm

I don't understand why libertarians don't just come out as what they are...anarchists.

Well, I do understand...it's because they have ulterior motives, that they would rather not discuss. They state their goal at just short of what they really want.

by Maddog Mon May 25, 2020 5:35 pm

https://www.lp.org/platform/

Since there appears to be some confusion on the party's platform, even by the Americans on this thread.

by Ben Reilly Mon May 25, 2020 6:33 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Sounds like a really great candidate to waste your vote on!

Hold on -- she doesn't believe that voting is a collective use of unnecessary force against individuals, does she?

I like wasting my vote on the best candidate and human.

I'm funny like that.

If by funny you mean ineffectual.

by Maddog Mon May 25, 2020 7:08 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I like wasting my vote on the best candidate and human.

I'm funny like that.

If by funny you mean ineffectual.

What does your one vote do Mr Hero?

by Original Quill Mon May 25, 2020 7:12 pm

That's a fair start. Let's look further:

2018 Platform wrote:As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.

So, either this is lawlessness, or libertarians have some other plan in mind.

2018 Platform wrote:We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Most people want peace. How do libertarians assure peace?

2018 Platform wrote:Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

How are such rights defended? Sounds a bit nefarious.

2018 Platform wrote:These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

See, this is what I object to. Libertarians will tell you what they don't want, but you cannot get them to inform us what they do want. What will life be under their control?

What constitutes peace for them?

How do they assure it?

Do they promise that there will be no force or violence involved? Why the guns?

I find that libertarians are anarchists, who only want to return to disorder so that they can eliminate justice. Most of the extant government is devoted to some form of justice, which we call public protections. Those are the very things that libertarians want to eliminate.

Very often, you hear libertarians speak of private property being their cardinal right. Private property is a euphemism for selfish interests. Here is how their system works: property = value; private = mine exclusively, which is a form of selfishness >> acquisitiveness and disenfranchisement of ‘others’.

What if libertarians asserted that all things belong to all people? Would not that be 'liberty', in the truest sense of freedom? Eliminate private property. Then, if all things were to belong to all people, there would be no one disenfranchised.

But libertarians don't want to discuss the 'what next' to their equation. That's why I say they have "ulterior motives, that they would rather not discuss". In fact, libertarianism is the threshold of totalitarianism...only they cloak themselves in the 'big rock candy mountain' (if you understand the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rock_Candy_Mountain ).

by Ben Reilly Mon May 25, 2020 7:36 pm

Seems like a good time to bring up this thread again: https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t23869-a-journey-into-a-libertarian-future

by Maddog Mon May 25, 2020 7:39 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Seems like a good time to bring up this thread again: https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t23869-a-journey-into-a-libertarian-future

What does your one vote do Mr Hero?

by Original Quill Mon May 25, 2020 7:56 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Seems like a good time to bring up this thread again: https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t23869-a-journey-into-a-libertarian-future

Very good reference. I felt the Deja Vous. That is the furthest I've ever heard from a libertarian, discussing what s/he is (as opposed to 'is not') offering.

Very much like Hitler's concentration camps, innit?

by Original Quill Mon May 25, 2020 7:57 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:Seems like a good time to bring up this thread again: https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t23869-a-journey-into-a-libertarian-future

What does your one vote do Mr Hero?

Whataboutism!

by Maddog Mon May 25, 2020 7:59 pm

by Maddog Mon May 25, 2020 10:40 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Seems like a good time to bring up this thread again: https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t23869-a-journey-into-a-libertarian-future

Who is the guy being interviewed? Is he a voting member of the Libertarian Party? Not that I am either, which is sorta my point. You could interview me and publish the interview and claim that I speak for the LP.

by Original Quill Mon May 25, 2020 10:48 pm

He uses a pseudonym.

He is an ignorant sort. No libertarian want's to answer the question, what then? It goes right back to the conditions that government was invented for in the first place.

by Maddog Mon May 25, 2020 11:01 pm

by Maddog Mon May 25, 2020 11:16 pm

Instead of relying on a a fake person, I think we should just listen to the candidate in her own words. Wink

“As President, I will use my Constitutional authority to block any new borrowing. I will veto any spending bill that would lead to a deficit, and veto any debt ceiling increase. I will give every Cabinet secretary a specific spending reduction target to meet and hold them accountable. There is simply no excuse for sticking our children and grandchildren with the bill for these bipartisan bloated budgets.”

by Original Quill Mon May 25, 2020 11:36 pm

Jo wrote:“As President, I will use my Constitutional authority to block any new borrowing. I will veto any spending bill that would lead to a deficit, and veto any debt ceiling increase. I will give every Cabinet secretary a specific spending reduction target to meet and hold them accountable. There is simply no excuse for sticking our children and grandchildren with the bill for these bipartisan bloated budgets.”

In other words, she will use financial pressure to shut down the government, thus leading to precisely what I am saying. It leads to a free field for injustice to creep in.

There's no way around it. What all libertarians want is for property mandates to replace justice and enfranchisement. Next comes slavery, then police to control things. No surprise there.

by Maddog Tue May 26, 2020 12:09 am

by Maddog Tue May 26, 2020 1:21 am

by Original Quill Tue May 26, 2020 2:09 am

Maddog wrote:

In other words, she will use financial pressure to shut down the government, thus leading to an open door for injustice to creep in.

There's no way around it. What all libertarians want is for property rights to replace justice and enfranchisement. Next to property rights comes slavery (incarcerations) for those who violate property rights, then police to enforce and control things for the ease and comfort of the propertied class. Suddenly, we've got a police state.

You coulda figgered this out by yourself.

by Maddog Tue May 26, 2020 2:34 am

by Original Quill Tue May 26, 2020 4:10 am

by Maddog Tue May 26, 2020 5:27 am

by Original Quill Tue May 26, 2020 3:32 pm

Policy. Naught to do with libertarianism.

by Maddog Tue May 26, 2020 4:29 pm

1.7 Crime and Justice

Government force must be limited to the protection of the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and property, and governments must never be permitted to violate these rights. Laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, and consensual transactions involving sexual services. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. The constitutional rights of the criminally accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law. We oppose the prosecutorial practice of “over-charging” in criminal prosecutions so as to avoid jury trials by intimidating defendants into accepting plea bargains.

by Original Quill Tue May 26, 2020 4:52 pm

2018 Platform wrote: Laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm.

As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said "No trespassin'"
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!

--Woodie Guthrie, This Land is Your Land

by Ben Reilly Tue May 26, 2020 11:02 pm

Cool, how does she feel about saddling our children and grandchildren with the task of saving the world from catastrophic climate change?

Asking for a friend, of course.

by Maddog Tue May 26, 2020 11:08 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Cool, how does she feel about saddling our children and grandchildren with the task of saving the world from catastrophic climate change?

Asking for a friend, of course.

I'd also talk about bringing the troops home, and the environment. I'd stress that if you look around the globe [historically] you see wherever there is bigger government, there's more pollution. As far as global warming, I don't want to get in a debate about how we got here. I want to talk about how to get the cleanest Earth we can get, and if we don't want global warming then nuclear power is the best option. [Rather than one imposed government standard] for reactors, we need a bunch of different companies out there competing, without government picking the winners. Imagine if in the early days of the computer field, the government said, "Bill Gates, you win. Apple, you are shut down." The reason why we got the iPhone is because Steve Jobs and Bill Gates couldn't stand each other and were competing against each other. [Regulations on nuclear power] lost that impetus for competing companies to try to provide better quality.

https://reason.com/2020/05/21/libertarian-presidential-contender-jo-jorgensen-wants-to-combine-principle-with-palatable-persuasion/

by Ben Reilly Tue May 26, 2020 11:13 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:Cool, how does she feel about saddling our children and grandchildren with the task of saving the world from catastrophic climate change?

Asking for a friend, of course.

I'd also talk about bringing the troops home, and the environment. I'd stress that if you look around the globe [historically] you see wherever there is bigger government, there's more pollution. As far as global warming, I don't want to get in a debate about how we got here. I want to talk about how to get the cleanest Earth we can get, and if we don't want global warming then nuclear power is the best option. [Rather than one imposed government standard] for reactors, we need a bunch of different companies out there competing, without government picking the winners. Imagine if in the early days of the computer field, the government said, "Bill Gates, you win. Apple, you are shut down." The reason why we got the iPhone is because Steve Jobs and Bill Gates couldn't stand each other and were competing against each other. [Regulations on nuclear power] lost that impetus for competing companies to try to provide better quality.

https://reason.com/2020/05/21/libertarian-presidential-contender-jo-jorgensen-wants-to-combine-principle-with-palatable-persuasion/

Still sounds like she cares far more about the Almighty Market than about climate change. And she's quite wishy-washy about it as well.

Of course the government isn't going to jump out and pick the winner of Best Gadget-Maker. Remember, the government is for issues of urgency, as you've pointed out.

by Maddog Tue May 26, 2020 11:16 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I'd also talk about bringing the troops home, and the environment. I'd stress that if you look around the globe [historically] you see wherever there is bigger government, there's more pollution. As far as global warming, I don't want to get in a debate about how we got here. I want to talk about how to get the cleanest Earth we can get, and if we don't want global warming then nuclear power is the best option. [Rather than one imposed government standard] for reactors, we need a bunch of different companies out there competing, without government picking the winners. Imagine if in the early days of the computer field, the government said, "Bill Gates, you win. Apple, you are shut down." The reason why we got the iPhone is because Steve Jobs and Bill Gates couldn't stand each other and were competing against each other. [Regulations on nuclear power] lost that impetus for competing companies to try to provide better quality.

https://reason.com/2020/05/21/libertarian-presidential-contender-jo-jorgensen-wants-to-combine-principle-with-palatable-persuasion/

Still sounds like she cares far more about the Almighty Market than about climate change. And she's quite wishy-washy about it as well.

Of course the government isn't going to jump out and pick the winner of Best Gadget-Maker. Remember, the government is for issues of urgency, as you've pointed out.

I don't expect you to like her solutions. They are not based on putting a boot on someone's throat.

by Ben Reilly Tue May 26, 2020 11:17 pm

If someone's fixing to set fire to your house, you need to put a boot to their throat.

by Maddog Tue May 26, 2020 11:23 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:If someone's fixing to set fire to your house, you need to put a boot to their throat.

Yeah.

by Ben Reilly Tue May 26, 2020 11:25 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:If someone's fixing to set fire to your house, you need to put a boot to their throat.

Yeah.

Yeah, well, that's what climate change is. Not a "let's think about getting around to addressing this at some point" problem, but an "in our face waving a gun" problem.

by Original Quill Tue May 26, 2020 11:32 pm

We need to eliminate capitalism--uncontrolled mob, needs reining in. Adverse to the rights of all.

In order to do this, we need to eliminate private property. All things to all people, no hoarding.

I'd like to see all rights to all things, thus defended.

Twisted Evil

by Sponsored content