actually, my results I posted were off.. by quite a bit

apparently I love Johnson.

http://www.isidewith.com/results/175625417

82% Gary Johnson Libertarian
on domestic policy, healthcare, social, and environmental issues

75% Jill Stein Green
on foreign policy, immigration, and science issues

73% Barack Obama Democrat
on foreign policy, immigration, science, and economic issues

58% Rocky Anderson Justice
on foreign policy and immigration issues

44% Mitt Romney Republican
on economic issues

53% Wisconsin Voters
on foreign policy, domestic policy, science, environmental, social, and economic issues.

62% American Voters
on foreign policy, domestic policy, science, immigration, healthcare, environmental, social, and economic issues.

I'm surprised I agree with so many American voters. In any case, I think government is local and the president isn't really all that powerful. Maybe I'm just dumb.

Just sitting here, programming on my chess AI, waiting for the exit polls to start coming out at this point.

Sprayed some drama-b-gone. Let's stay on topic.

[edit]

ghetto merge of the relevant part of Caleb's post.

At this point I feel like somehow the green party and the libertarian party need to join forces next election, although there would be a lot of reconciling to do on the topic of government funded research.

pff, thanks for that, I was wondering what would happen to those numbers. But I am kinda sad my defense to the illegitimate drama didn't make it in, whereas Merth's did.

As a fairly green-minded libertarian, I would be quite pleased to see the libertarian party working to incorporate aspects of the green agenda. I tried to get Gary Johnson to weigh in on this several times during his interactive campaign events, and even got a certain Californian with whom you are acquainted to ask him in person and he said he didn't understand the question. The mainstream libertarian party isn't ready to get excited about the environment, and the mainstream green party isn't ready to get excited about free market economics or philanthropy/private-sector driven research funding.

If somehow all the 3rd parties somehow worked together to defeat the 2 party system, that would be fantastic. Sadly that won't happen until they can somehow resolve their major differences.

I feel like there is a happy medium between no government research and government interference in the market. With the massive resources the government can direct, I imagine some *really* cool stuff could be done in the green department (think of a DARPA but for green stuff, rather than explodey stuff). Things like the Hubble and JWST would probably not be in existence without government funded science. There are certain things that a society can get together and do that really change the world, and I think that it's necessary to remember that.

If I were running on a libertarian platform I would probably support science funding through the defense department and through the justice department (for improved forensic understanding of soil, water, and atmospheric science).

The problem is that the core of libertarian philosophy is the non-aggression principle. For most libertarians that means the "happy medium" is a night watchman state, serving as a middle ground between anarcho-capitalism and essentially everything else.



I disagree, but this is not the topic for that


Yes, I totally agree. But to a libertarian, "society getting together doing something" is not at all synonymous with "government threatening force against people who disagree".

The nature of government will always be paternalistic, though. What if I want to live in an anarcho-capitalist state, and thus refuse to pay any taxes whatsoever? Libertarians hold that the only purpose of government should be to defend property rights and enforce contracts, but that itself is still on the spectrum of "things government can threaten force against people who disagree" (albeit much much lower on the spectrum). If I were an anarcho-capitalist I might think that it's not even government's place to enforce contracts and property rights, yet under Gary Johnson (et al) I would still be forced to pay taxes on things I might not support (if I were an anarcho-capitalist).

You're absolutely right. That's why most hardcore libertarian theorists turn into anarcho-capitalists eventually. The rest of us think a night-watchman state is a nice compromise, and required to protect property rights in a way that doesn't degenerate into social darwinism.

I feel like the only non-self-defeating standpoint of the libertarian philosophy is at anarcho-capitalism. I'm glad that you agree, though. I suppose I am just more comfortable a bit higher up the paternalism spectrum.

That's why I'm hesitant to ever call myself a libertarian, I always get people saying "WELL DON'T YOU WANT ROADS". Just like whenever I identify as an atheist people get all "you can't prove there isn't a God". It's very frustrating. I don't think I'd be a big fan of anarcho-capitalism, though, I think way too much like Hobbes for that (assuming I understand anarcho-capitalism).

If I had an optimistic Enlightenment view of human nature I'd probably be an anarcho-capitalist too. Since I believe that humans are inherently screwed up and unlikely to voluntarily organize into just societies in what is essentially a state of nature, I think minarchism is the next best thing. Even if the taxation and authority behind it are not compatible with non-aggression, I believe them necessary to protect non-aggression everywhere else.

-----
Shaun, if you're unsure whether or not you understand anarcho-capitalism, I suggest you read Murray Rothbard.

Incidentally, the roads issue is one of the ways in which libertarianism is actually MUCH friendlier towards an eco-friendly agenda than anyone suspects.

See, if I knew that the whole world were populated with people like myself and elfprince, I'd be totally cool with anarcho-capitalism. Problem is, it's not.

I just feel like Libertarians shouldn't have their footing on the idea that it's immoral/unjustifiable/etc for the government to make people do something by force, because even though they are really low on the spectrum of government force, they are still on it.

There are plenty of other similar statements that are not self-defeating, that would adequately describe what the Libertarians want.

I live in Vermont, which is massively a Democratic state, and they support Obama.

However, I personally feel that he hasn't really done anything notable for our country. Some people told me that he's getting us out of the economic hole that Bush dug, but I don't really know what their basing their thoughts on and I feel that Obama got us out of the hole (sort of) only because he just handed out millions to the big bushiness.

But that's just my opinion, I'm not trying to sway anybody else.

You can hit it from the utilitarian ethics instead of the deontological ethics side, but I'm personally not a fan of utilitarian ethics, and I think many libertarians aren't either. Plenty of Libertarian Party members are though, Gary Johnson being one of them.

And argumentation ethics is cute, but doesn't actually work.


-------

[edit]
Wait, we have another Vermonter? *high-five* Which part of the state?

http://www.isidewith.com/results/226378468

82% Johnson (L)
80% Stein (G)
75% Obama (D)
13% Romney (R)
56% California Voters
58% American Voters

85% Democrat
84% Green
65% Libertarian
3% Republican

This is more-or-less what I meant by "I think way too much like Hobbes for that". I don't really think any anarchic society (is that a right way to put that) could work, because we're inherently pretty terrible--that and there're natural followers and natural leaders, and it'd just be a matter of time until something terrible happened (like a dictatorship or monarchy or empire or republic).