Libertarian Nominee in 2020

Page 1 of 212>
June 8th, 2020 at 3:15:31 PM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Did you think I was going to let you major party folks have all of the fun?

Dr. Jo Jorgensen is the 2020 Libertarian Nominee for President, so I will now give a brief biography and will espouse some of her positions as well as how I think they compare to my positions and those of Libertarians, on the whole.

Biography

Dr. Jo Jorgensen is perhaps best known for being the 1996 Libertarian Nominee for Vice-President in support of then POTUS-nominee, Harry Browne. At the time, as evident in her nomination acceptance speech, the Libertarian Party was mostly compared (and drew from) the Republican Party. Throughout her speech, Dr. Jorgensen (not yet a doctor) lambasted the Republican Party for their claims to be the party of small federal government as well as claims to be the party of less federal government spending. Throughout this acceptance speech, she made a ton of jokes aimed at the GOP and pointed out that there wasn't much fiscal difference between the two parties and that the LP is actually the party of smaller Government.

In the years since, Dr. Jorgensen achieved a Ph.D. in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Clemson and is currently employed as a Psychology Senior Lecturer, also at Clemson.

Dr. Jorgensen bested a very crowded field for the Libertarian Nomination this year and is being supported by Libertarian Vice-Presidential nominee, Spike Cohen. In the Libertarian Party, the POTUS nominee can theoretically express a preference for VP Nominee, but it is voted upon separately. When asked prior to getting the POTUS Nominee nod, Dr. Jorgensen essentially said there were four or five people who she would like, but didn't really plan on making her preferences known publicly because she wanted the party to decide.

For her part, Dr. Jorgensen received a majority of the delegates' votes on the fourth ballot.

Now, to the issues, which I will often paraphrase from:

https://joj2020.com/issues-jo-jorgensen/

ISSUES

Government Spending:

-In general terms, Dr. Jorgensen is in favor of reducing Federal Government spending. While some people might believe POTUS does not have much control over this, that is actually not true, for several reasons:

1.) The pen and veto line can be a very powerful tool, so at a minimum, you won't have to worry about Democrats or Republicans getting their way on everything regardless of what the Congressional power structure looks like.

2.) Dr. Jorgensen would immediately pull our military members from all overseas operations not being conducted in a U.S. territory. This will make us closer to her military vision of Armed Forces used only for the purpose of defense and to be, "A giant Switzerland; armed and neutral."

3.) Dr. Jorgensen would give all of her cabinet staff spending reduction targets.

4.) Dr. Jorgensen would cease enforcing Federal drug laws of any kind related to usage and peaceful distribution. Dr. Jorgensen will immediately pardon all drug-related offenders who are in jail or prison for all drug crimes that had no element of violence.

In general terms, Libertarians agree, almost unanimously, with all of these things. The only exception would be the few Anarchists who, for whatever reason, choose to call themselves Libertarians.

Health Care

There's only so much a POTUS can do in this regard, from a parctical standpoint, but Dr. Jorgensen would sign no bill into law that would increase Federal Healthcare spending in any way whatsoever. Anything that Dr. Jorgensen could pass that would reduce spending in this regard, or get the Government more out of healthcare, in general, she would pass.

Libertarians mostly agree with this on the Federal-Level. I agree with this on the Federal-Level, but have no problem with what individual states decide to do on the question of healthcare. I'll just move to a different state if I don't like what my current state is doing.

Environment

From her website, verbatim:

"“I will work to remove government barriers to replacing coal-burning and oil-burning power plants in the United States with safe, non-polluting, high-tech nuclear power plants – and allowing off-grid use of solar power. Worldwide, I believe we need to consider all scientific & economic knowledge to care for our environment, not cherry-pick data to support a pre-determined outcome. Most pollution is generated in developing countries, so reducing pollution worldwide requires cost-efficient zero emission energy sources like nuclear.”

Libertarians generally support the free market, in almost all instances, so this would basically jive well with most Libertarians. I don't give a sweet **** about the environment at all whatsoever, so I don't care about this matter at all. I don't know much about environmental affairs, I don't care much about them, so I'm not going to pretend to do either of those things.

Social Security

Again, there's nothing that a POTUS can actually do about this, but Dr. Jorgensen supports giving Americans the opportunity to, 'Opt out,' of this forced investment program, if they choose. Everyone who has already paid into the system will get their money, which Dr. Jorgensen would ensure with the selling of certain Federally owned properties and cost savings in other areas.

Most Libertarians would support the underlying concept of this, but might have different ways of going about it. Some would just get rid of it, but Dr. Jorgensen points out that would be unfair as it negatively impacts those who have already paid into it.

Trade and Immigration

Free trade, eliminate all tariffs. As close to freedom of movement as is possible for a POTUS to do. She would probably also mandate INS to basically not do anything and most of them would be looking for work.

Almost all Libertarians support free trade and open borders.

Criminal Justice

Anyone in prison for a victimless crime would immediately be pardoned. Federal civil asset forfeiture would end entirely (she can actually do that) unless and until the accused is actually convicted of a crime. She would try to get Congress to legalize more drugs and do away with other victimless crime laws at the Federal Level.

Libertarians are almost uniformly in favor of these things.

Police

The police, at the Federal-level (and encouraged on state levels) would ideally only respond to instances related to violence and/or theft. While the police would investigate other crimes, it would require a person to go file a report.

For anything else, private security could be used. The police would only concern themselves with crimes of person and property.

-Most Libertarians would agree with this, except the few who would remove the police entirely.

Education

Dr. Jorgensen will do everything she can to completely eliminate the Federal Government's involvement with education, including the Federal backing of student loans. Without banks being willing to sign off on these absolutely guaranteed loans, college prices will drop because it will be the only way to achieve full enrollment...otherwise nobody could even afford to go. Individual states could basically do whatever they want.

Most Libertarians would support this, though a few would eliminate all Government-supported education entirely, not just Federal level.

Taxes

Dr. Jorgensen would sign no new Federal-level tax whatsoever into law and would sign into law virtually any bill eliminating or reducing taxes.

A FEW GENERALITIES

Non-Aggression Principle (NAP

Almost all Libertarians subscribe to the non-aggression principle, which states:

Quote:
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor.


LGBTQ Rights

The majority of Libertarians support LGBTQ Rights, if for no other reason, on the grounds that as long as what another individual/group is doing does not harm anyone else, then it is none of the business of anybody aside from the person/group.

Gun Rights

Most Libertarians favor no gun restrictions whatsoever. In general, I do not favor gun restrictions, but there are a few I don't have a great problem with on the state level. The Federal Government, unto itself, should not have any gun restrictive laws whatsoever.

Conclusion

That seems like a good starting point if anyone wishes to discuss Dr. Jorgensen, or Libertarianism, in general. If you are interested in my views, (where not stated) then feel free to ask.

In advance, yes, I know Dr. Jorgensen will almost certainly not win. Thank you.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
June 8th, 2020 at 3:21:25 PM permalink
Gandler
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 27
Posts: 4236
I actually watched the debate.

I am not libertarian (I used to be so I am still a member of some of the old groups).

Healthcare alone she loses me, we need major healthcare reform.

LGBT rights, we have made great strides with protecting gay rights. Her position is to not have legislation protecting equality if I am understanding correctly, another no-go for me. We need laws that prevent discriminations.

Gun rights fine, I am all for owning whatever guns a legal citizen wants....

Open borders = total madness.
Private Police= total madness. (this is being discussed in other threads right now).

There is a reason I am not libertarian anymore.
June 8th, 2020 at 3:39:57 PM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: Gandler
I actually watched the debate.

I am not libertarian (I used to be so I am still a member of some of the old groups).

Healthcare alone she loses me, we need major healthcare reform.


We need major cost-reduction. Too many middlemen, too much waste, too much over-billing.

There's a bunch of stuff you can do to save costs. The first thing you can do is not have the Federal Government support an artificial market on the demand side. To accomplish that, you get rid of Medicare and Medicaid at the Federal Level, though the states can do what they want. Second thing, you get rid of all medical benefits for members of the Armed Forces who are not on active duty, and even then, they won't be doing much of anything since we'll be getting our noses out of business that has nothing to do with us abroad.

As far as the elderly and infirm, the church-backed hospitals or charities can take care of that problem if they care about it so much. If it turns out that they don't care as much as they claim, then it is what it is. Or, the Liberals who support Universal Healthcare can all gather together for folks on GoFundMe, or whatever, but I don't imagine many of them will like the shift in where the money comes from.

In short, toss it to the states. There's nothing in the Constitution that would suggest that the Federal Government has anything to do with healthcare.

Quote:
LGBT rights, we have made great strides with protecting gay rights. Her position is to not have legislation protecting equality if I am understanding correctly, another no-go for me. We need laws that prevent discriminations.


I can't imagine Dr. Jorgensen, or many other Libertarians for that matter, would be opposed to anti-discrimination civil laws.

Quote:
Gun rights fine, I am all for owning whatever guns a legal citizen wants....

Open borders = total madness.
Private Police= total madness. (this is being discussed in other threads right now).

There is a reason I am not libertarian anymore.


Dr. Jorgensen does not favor the use of private police exclusively, nor do I. She is in favor of using police only for violent offenses or offenses (such as theft) to property, in terms of directly responding. They would still investigate other crimes, but they would not report over every petty dispute because it just creates more of a problem when they do. They would (ideally) not actively enforce laws against drug use or possession, including other similar things...like brewing your own moonshine. They would not enforce prostitution laws for torts by consent of both parties, much less set up stings, though they would enforce human trafficking laws. I'd say she would make consensual prostitution legal and semi-regulated, if she could, but even as POTUS she'd not have that power.

What's wrong with open borders? The absence of open borders keeps you a prisoner of the United States of America, if it is to their liking. Not letting whoever wants to come in (other than criminals) enter restricts freedom of association both for themselves and those Americans who would willingly associate with them. None of these things are conducive to freedom.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
June 8th, 2020 at 3:48:41 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Perfect thread for Mission and Gandler.
I fell asleep twice trying to read the
whole thing, you guys knock yourselves
out.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
June 8th, 2020 at 4:12:01 PM permalink
SOOPOO
Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 22
Posts: 4156
Quote: Evenbob
Perfect thread for Mission and Gandler.
I fell asleep twice trying to read the
whole thing, you guys knock yourselves
out.


Agree... The only thing worse would be a thread or 20 of EvenBob and FrG...... oh wait.....

(Teasing!!! I like Bob and FrG going at it, and I like many of the concepts of Libertarianism......)
June 8th, 2020 at 4:15:38 PM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: Evenbob
Perfect thread for Mission and Gandler.
I fell asleep twice trying to read the
whole thing, you guys knock yourselves
out.


Yeah, my post is considerably longer than the words, “Straight ticket.”
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
June 8th, 2020 at 4:26:17 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: Mission146
Yeah, my post is considerably longer than the words, “Straight ticket.”


Libertarians amaze me. They defy
gravity with their noses so far in
the air, I always expect them to
tip over backwards. And I have
it on good authority that when
they use the bathroom you not
only hear the voices of angels
singing, the odor they leave
behind is that of lavender and
rose water.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
June 8th, 2020 at 4:29:14 PM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: Evenbob
Libertarians amaze me. They defy
gravity with their noses so far in
the air, I always expect them to
tip over backwards. And I have
it on good authority that when
they use the bathroom you not
only hear the voices of angels
singing, the odor they leave
behind is that of lavender and
rose water.


I’ll check the fragrance of my travel-sized bottle of Poo-Pourri and get back to you, there’s definitely a floral element of some kind.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
June 8th, 2020 at 4:38:04 PM permalink
Shrek
Member since: Aug 13, 2019
Threads: 6
Posts: 1635
Quote: Evenbob
Libertarians amaze me.

The Libertarian Party has some good ideas, but they're all canceled out by an equal amount of nutty ideas. 😂😂
June 8th, 2020 at 4:40:35 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: Mission146
I’ll check the fragrance of my travel-sized bottle o


My point was all Libertarians think
their words should be treated as
actually Coming From God.. I don't
think their feet touch the ground
when they walk, they're so Holy.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
Page 1 of 212>