Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Daily Caller – US Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson wants to impose a government enforced carbon fee to combat climate change.
Climate change and health care
Johnson has been to Alaska several times, including a trip where he summitted Denali. (He’s reached the top of the highest mountain on each continent and is an Ironman triathlete.) He campaigned in Anchorage during his 2012 run for president, holding a rally on the Delaney Park Strip.
“I envy all of you,” he said. “I think it’s the most beautiful state in the country.”
Climate change and a warming world might threaten that.
“I do believe that climate change is occurring. I do believe that it is man-caused,” Johnson said.
To address climate change, Johnson said he believes “that there can be and is a free-market approach to climate change.”
That would include a fee — not a tax, he said — placed on carbon. Such a fee would make pollutants bear a market cost.
“We as human beings want to see carbon emissions reduced significantly,” but at the same time, he says the United States is only “16 percent of the (global) load” of carbon, and “I don’t want to do anything that harms jobs.”
“The rest of the world has to catch up with us,” he said.
The alternative to a carbon tax is a carbon market, but as the European experience demonstrates, carbon markets lead to massive corruption and inevitable collapse.
The reason is very simple – with a carbon market, unlike a real market, fraud benefits all the market participants.
Fraud benefits the issuers of fake carbon credits – they get to make money for nothing.
Fraud benefits the purchasers of carbon credits – a flood of fake carbon credits keeps prices down.
Fraud benefits market regulators – they get rich turning a blind eye to the fraud.
The only people carbon fraud doesn’t benefit is anyone silly enough to think that market based carbon pricing can make a long term difference to CO2 emissions.
Gary Johnson the LINO (libertarian in name only).
In my humble opinion what Gary Johnson says is 100% in agreement with the Libertarian principle of “do not hurt people”. If he believes carbon hurts the world then he should back actions against those causing that hurt. Maybe his wrong in his belief, but that is a different argument.
Take him on for his belief in carbon causing harm, but recognize that he acts according to Libertarian principles.
Coming out in favor of a whole new class of taxation in order to make government even bigger and stronger is a gross desecration of every principle that Libertarianism was supposed to be about.
He does not act “according to libertarian principles”, he acts to destroy every one of those principles and make the movement a punchline to a bad joke forever.
The simplest libertarian principle is “I choose for me, you choose for you.” He can pay a carbon tax if he wishes and perhaps I won’t.
Imposing a tax or “fee” (not sure what exactly is the difference) on others is not libertarian. It may be expedient or necessary, but it is not libertarian.
I have a doubt such a thing as a legitimately libertarian PARTY can exist. It would have no more force than the “ten suggestions”.
So if not libertarian, what is it? I suggest pre-Orwellian or More-ish.
As Sir Thomas More’ points out in “Utopia”, the easy way for a regime to get money is to tax or license something everyone uses. This quote pertains to a King wishing to reduce his debts, and several ideas are proposed including announcing a fake war, raising money, then announcing success and peace (sounds a bit familiar) but here’s the relevant part:
A fourth proposes the prohibiting of many things under severe penalties, especially such as were against the interest of the people, and then the dispensing with these prohibitions, upon great compositions, to those who might find their advantage in breaking them. This would serve two ends, both of them acceptable to many; for as those whose avarice led them to transgress would be severely fined, so the selling licences dear would look as if a prince were tender of his people, and would not easily, or at low rates, dispense with anything that might be against the public good.
Or in other words, (1) ban something that people want and then (2) sell licenses or (3) issue fines against people that had used the banned thing without a license.
Tax or Fee, It is really just another way to subsidize Big Government
“Do not hurt people” is NOT the same as “Must force others to help people”.
A Government imposed “fee” on carbon is not “free market” nor “libertarian”.
As I said elsewhere, if you want a President Hillarity …er… Hillary, vote third party.
(The “President Hillarity” part was a joke. Maybe a bad one. As she would be.)
This is a play for the Bernie Sanders vote. CO2 is not a pollutant, and I, as a human, want to see “carbon emissions” increased, not reduced.
No. You have to prove that harm was done. Tacking on an artificial price tag to something because of an irrational belief that you have is not a market based solution and is not a libertarian strategy because it requires government to enforce a completely artificial fee structure. A real libertarian would try to find a real market based solution, not just change the language used to describe the already planned government non-solution.
Hillary Clinton would recognize the motives of the bankers who fund UN green projects and the founders of and investors in carbon credit exchanges and the UN NGOs who buy the rights to the natural resources of Third World nations when they default on loans,and the greed of their heads of state, and the environmental organizations and scientists who chose between support for AWG and starvation, and would pretend to see them as good and support them.
Gary Johnson was a good guy who has put his personal beliefs before politics in advocating for cannabis decriminalization in the past, and I hope he’s ignorant and not stupid, and that he hasn’t gone over to the dark side.
LOL! Libertarian my eye! One can believe what they want but thats the whole reason there is a libertarian party to provide and alternative to the true believers. Should anybody mention the word “evidence”? In my view the libertarian view is like a jury, when there is no realistic dissent then you act. The libertarian cause was not invented to support the pipe dreams of anybody who happens to be running for office. The anti-libertarians have gone to great extent to minimize disagreement to the point of conspiracies to weed out dissidents.
Still, I think Gary Johnston did a commendable job for his role in Team America, World Police.
[…] the Libertarian principle of “do not hurt people” […]
This is a complete nonsense.
The libertarian principle rests on the Non-Aggression Axiom … the “idea that each person has the right to make his or her own choices in life so long as they do not involve aggression, defined as the initiation of force or fraud, against others.”
Since Johnson is proposing government force (to tax) to compel decisions by others which he believes desirable, it naturally follows that he is not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.
Libertarianism died 20 years ago.
More like DOA. It’s done nothing in it’s life span. They couldn’t even get Goldwater elected, but that was probably because he was a Jew.
I was a Libertarian from the inception of the Party in 1972. Therefore, “David” is talking through his hat, because Goldwater ran in 1964. I was witness on both occasions. And the further crack about Goldwater’s heritage should have been intercepted by the site monitors.
Liberal fascists ate it.
Only an idiot would vote for Gary Johnson.
He’s got the pothead wing following now that Bernie has indorsed Crooked Hillary.
Only an idiot would vote for someone they know is a lying bully with no character or a lying traitor with no core beliefs that sells out their country.
You would have to be an idiot if you think the Ds and Rs have done anything but lie, cheat and steal to protect themselves and their futures.
imo Voting for either of them would be wasting my vote.
Johnson doesn’t lie and he believes in our constitution.
Unlike the current POTUS, Johnson will not ignore our country’s three separate branches of government, he will not write his own laws and he will use his veto power every time congress oversteps their constitutional limits.
Remember, our government is designed to ensure the people’s rights not the government’s control of the people.
When are you going to stand up for a system that puts the people’s rights and freedom first?
nittfagmtcttaotc.
@mikerestin: And yet you support a candidate that aligns himself with the false notion that CO2 causes global warming, which is being pushed extensively by the UN. Yes, it takes an idiot to do that.
But there’s more:
The only thing worse than usurping US government is supporting a primary goal of the UN, which is global control through a carbon tax/fee.
This election isn’t between Ds and Rs–it’s whether we maintain our national identity or become part of a global government, which I guarantee would not recognize your rights as an individual–far from it.
So if you want to even have a government of three branches after this election, beating HRC is absolutely essential, and a vote for Gary Johnson helps her become president–a president that will already be owned by global elites pushing one world government.
The candidate to vote for is the one the globalists hate and are trying to destroy, and that imperfect candidate happens to be Trump.
@mikerestin – It would appear from the plethora of ad hominem that you sir are likely more of an Alinskyite Democrat Liberal Leftist than a Libertarian. That could make sense given a vote for the Libertarian candidate appears to hurt the conservative or Republican candidate more than the Democrat Liberal in the majority of cases.
No room for ad hominem here. Go away. Much obliged.
Right!? How could anyone call themselves a libertarian and believe in Big Government solutions to manufactured problems. I have yet to see a hypothetical cap and trade plan, broad strokes mind you, for what Uncle Sam is going to do with all that newfound wealth that will mitigate climate change. Forget the fact that CC is natural occurring planetary process that they can’t explain.
Libertarian and anarchist mean exactly the same thing. Those two words are completely interchangeable.
g
As a long-time Libertarian, I can say that not all of us subscribe to anarchy–unless, of course, one defines anarchy as limited, rather than no, government. The anarchists have always had some Libertarian advocates, but they are by no means the majority.
Fee – a tax by any other name still stinketh. Johnson is not your daddy’s Libertarian.
Excellent way to put it. No way does a Libertarian put his personal “beliefs” up as justification for a tax.
Johnson is indeed a LINO Justin. I believe he is in the race to help elect Clinton.
I think Trumps has that job already. Could be he needs help though, Hillarity is starting to stumble a bit.
There is nothing wrong with Hillary. She just needs to get a walking frame.
Literally, ….. “stumble a bit”.
Hillary has a serious “impairing” health issues.
“Ian H August 23, 2016 at 2:16 am
There is nothing wrong with Hillary. She just needs to get a walking frame.”
Except she’s totally anti-American, anti-constitution, a socialist/communist/fascist and a NWO supporter.
She needs a walking frame and a working brain.
She needs to re-read history. Specifically the histories of Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler.
A person who does not learn from history is destined to repeat it.
It seems that a number of the FBI files on the Vince Foster’s death have disappeared from the National Archive. Has anyone seen Sandy “underpants” Berger?
BryanA, why do you believe she does not want to repeat history?
If anything, history teaches us that people do not want to be ruled over by Dictators, Despots, or Totalitarians
What the Declaration of independence shows us is that trying to reform our government info something resembling Despotism should be immediately dealt with
Every candidate should refamiliarize themselves with it
Samuel C Cogar ; and Donald has serious mental and age related issues, I pity your choices but Republicans chose to loose this election , it’s their own fault
Well, if Hillary collapses on stage in a twitching mess during the debates that might be it.
Johnson and Weld have been showing almost daily that the Libertarian Party chose the wrong candidates.
Their platform has not been very “Libertarian” at all.
What platform? Outside of NM, who would recognize him on the street?
The Libertarian candidates are really liberal Republicans.
The “Libertarian” party is very much in the hands of Libertines.
He’s got the cosmo vote all locked up. It’s telling that all his appeals are to bernie bros and is basically telling conservatarians to go johnson themselves.
“scientists” said it .
therefore it must be true.
is that right, gary?
or do you want to take a look under the hood?
it’s a mess.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2827927
He certainly has an impressie athletic record. Pity he doesn’t exercise his brain more.
Although I’m an enthusiastic Johnson/Weld supporter, I don’t agree with their entire platform, especially the plank dealing with climate change. However, it’s likely that he’s in the same boat as is most of the American public. Because of the mass media blackout of contrary data (just like the fact that most people don’t even know he’s running), he probably has no idea of the science that contradicts the global warming/CO2/climate change theory. By the way, I’m trying to send his campaign some helpful links.
I joined the party at its beginning in 1972 and was active up into the 90s, but finally had to move on. By the late 80s, the anarchist wing of the movement had pretty much captured the party leadership posts, which meant that the focus of the party thereafter was to support anything that would impair or eliminate government. As a result, the LP was never “there” on a number of crucial issues, such as the 2nd Amendment. Lots of lip service, but not to raise a finger. Eventually, it became clear to me that the Party did not understand that the crucial issue was Constitutionality (subjecting government to the control of law), and I simply left. It was destined to be a footnote in history, notwithstanding it had some truly sterling people who ran for office.
Now, climate change? It just goes to show how much idiocy can penetrate the top Party leadership. Trust me; there are plenty of technical types in the Party. They should have known better. But they like to pander to the left, because they have cultural objections to the right (atheist prejudice against Christians). For many years (and maybe still), the LP defense policy was basically “roll over and expose your belly, and all will be well.” As a worker in the defense industry, I found this as objectionable as we all find “climate change” today, on the same grounds: absence of rational argument.
I have some history, knew some big people, and had some little fame, but it doesn’t mean anything. Nor does Gary Johnson.
Interesting background, Michael. I’ve noticed that the libertarians seem to only really find their fiscal conservatism when it comes to defense spending. You’ll hear barely a peep out of them on the welfare state. It’s obvious that they’re just trying to starve the defense beast in hopes that that will magically end all these unjust wars. Once that issue is taken off the table it’s all bathrooms and free, i.e. stolen IP.
I don’t know why people continue to demonize carbon dioxide when it is necessary for life on this planet and has been shown to have a net benefit at higher concentrations. are they Malthusians?
I think some are Malthusians. The rest are probably just not so bright.
As per Hanlon’s razor, when in doubt between stupidity and malice, always pick stupidity. Works 97% of the time.
It appears to me that the whole AGW drumbeat began just about the time it became clear that centrally planned economies would never outperform markets. Saving the world from warming became the new “reason” for the old agenda of the left.
The Malthusian option: Food or Ethanol? A Limerick with explanation.
When EPA regulates, they are but slobs;
No thought what effect it will have on our jobs. (1)
You want food? You want fuel?(2)
The one choice is too cruel. (3)
A Malthusian choice, that’s why Mother Earth sobs. (4)
expanding… https://lenbilen.com/2012/02/12/the-malthusian-option-food-or-ethanol-a-limerick-with-explanation/
Ethanol is not by any means the only source of alternative energy. It was pushed by an agricultural lobby, not by the global warming movement in general.
I propose we meet them half way – Start with carbon tax on self-declared believers, see how that goes, then when success is assured by a downtrend in global warming, hit the rest of us with the same tax. It allows the believers to put their money where their beliefs are and to demonstrate it is on the right track to solve global warming. Win win.
brilliant.
That’s a great idea… except for step 2. It would be stupid to tax people that don’t believe in the CAGW religion. Step 2 should, instead, be tax the true believers even more.
If there is a downtrend in global warming, it won’t be due to step 1.
That would entail spending their own money to benefit others, instead of the converse. I don’t think they know how.
Renaming a “tax” as a “fee”, is a liberal trick..I thought Libertarians wanted LESS government .
Sigh. I’m a libertarian and Johnson was my last and only hope.
ha ha ha ha ha
now that you’ve run out of options at the quick.trip discount counter of personal decisions what will you do?
submit? bend over? learn to like it?
of course, options of which you are unaware are not options at all- for you.
maybe it’s time to expand the awareness?
if there ever was a free country- what made it so and what are you missing?
I guess if you can’t get a libertarian then your best bet is the least authoritarian of the authoritarians?
Is there one?
Gnomish writes: “if there ever was a free country- what made it so”
Acknowledging that “free” is poorly defined; in my lifetime I have experienced the greatest freedom in Iceland. What makes it free is a homogenous culture. Plenty of laws exist; after all, the legislature was hired to make laws so they make plenty. But they are also not closely heeded neither deliberately disobeyed. The simple observation is that a quarter million people, the entire population, has a shared history of about 1100 years and so “law” emanates from the people not the other way round. Law is a reflection of the people and thus not strictly necessary.
Boundaries exist and must exist any time you have people living together; law is a codification or documenting of those boundaries. But if you don’t personally push up against the boundaries you won’t even feel their existence.
As science fiction writer Poul Anderson put it: “Freedom is having a cage larger than you wish to fly in.”
But once you feel the boundary, feel the cage, then you sense that you are no longer free; but in truth, you never were completely free of all boundaries or cages.
A social force greater than law can create a sense of freedom by aligning everyone’s natural sense of right and wrong; aligning personal boundaries. That has historically been a shared religion which is both shaper of culture and shaped by culture.
thnks, michael2, for that reply.
i can totally recreate the landscape of your mind from that.
and i can see the sense of it.
so i won’t quibble over definitions. i got your point.
The Electoral College is a good thing in itself. It is a good attempt at giving individual states and the all the voters of the country a somewhat equal say in the US’s only nationwide election.
But it needs a slight adjustment.
If the candidate for President (or any Federal election) receives less than 50% of the popular vote, then a month later there should be a run off election between the top two vote getters.
Then the top two would have to pay attention to the third party voters to gain their support.
Then a third party vote may not be a wasted vote. Until then, it is.
charismatic Gary Johnson:
“I envy all of you,” he said. “I think it’s the most beautiful state in the country.”
_______________________________________
That’s charming.
_______________________________________
Climate change and a warming world might threaten that.
“I do believe that climate change is occurring. I do believe that it is man-caused,” Johnson said.
To address climate change, Johnson said he believes “that there can be and is a free-market approach to climate change.”
That would include a fee — not a tax, he said — placed on carbon. Such a fee would make pollutants bear a market cost.
_______________________________________
That’s Gary Johnson charming people into fees.
Many non-libertarian things have been dumped into Libertarian Party politics since 1972.
That’s Gary Johnson charming people into feces.
v’
Tax on carbon? Does that mean each person is taxed based on the carbon content of there body? Or does it mean that food is taxed on the amount of carbon it contains? What about pets – they are made of carbon also, as is what they eat.
I don’t think science is well taught.
Perhaps a tax on fat people wouldn’t be so bad. Oh, sorry let me be more PC…… thin challenged people.
A fat tax would be discriminatory against taller people, sumo wrestlers, and Eastern cultures like that of traditional China where a chubby person signifies good fortune and wealth. It would also discriminate against me. So yes, it would be bad.
Instead, why don’t we tax people in Florida? If you’re going to buy the global-warming narrative that carbon is bad, then you should also accept that people living in warm climates like Florida are going to be forced to migrate north in a few years. That will put a financial strain on the rest of us. Shouldn’t we tax you guys now to help offset the future costs of helping you when you become climate refugees?
We won’t be moving north. Warmer is better, that’s why we live here.. It is better to tax the people who have not moved to Florida. It would be just like “if you don’t have Obamacare you have to pay a tax”.
I’ll be staying in Hawaii until the sea level rise exceeds 800 feet. I don’t expect that any time soon.
What a disappointment. Johnson has gone over to the Dark Side. Also supporting TPP.
“Also supporting TPP.”
I believe that would be consistent with Libertarian philosophy. Open borders as well.
if TTP was actually about free trade–yes, since it isn’t, but rather gives corporations powers that superseded sovereignty–no. Free trade is what happens on Craig’s list, Ebay, local farmers market etc, not something containing thousands of pages of government/corporation rules, regulations, and penalties. As to the open border question, several articles about that can be found on LRC–a place where honest to goodness libertarians hang out.
“That would include a fee — not a tax, he said — placed on carbon. Such a fee would make pollutants bear a market cost.” A fee – not a tax, I think that thin air at high altitudes has zapped your brain. I suppose you think carbon dioxide is a pollutant??? You are no Libertarian, just another “big government” guy.
Obamacare was promoted as a fee, and declared a tax by the supreme court, but that was OK (John Roberts, shame on you).
Not to get too far off topic but Roberts gave the Republicans in Congress a way to cancel the fee. By declaring it a tax, he also said it was up to the Congress to change tax law not the Supreme Court. Don’t blame Roberts just because the Republicans did nothing with the gift he gave them.
Would this be the Republicans who don’t have enough votes to over ride an presidential veto?
Interesting way you justify Robert’s attempt to avoid doing his job, by declaring that since he had handed the hot potato off to someone else, he’s ok.
No Mark, I am saying that Roberts did exactly what a Justice is supposed to do. He ruled but did not make new law. It was up to the Republicans to fix the law if they so desired but apparently they did not desire to do so. It doesn’t matter if they did not have enough votes to override a veto, they needed to make Obama veto it on the public record. I still contend that all, that is ALL, Senators and Congresspeople do not give a crap about anything but staying if office. They all have a sweet ride and do not want to rock the boat.
Sorry Tom, he re-wrote the law. The law explicitly stated that it was a fee, not a tax. Roberts decided that despite what the law said, he was going to call it a fee.
What Roberts actually decided was that Congress has the power under the Constitution to tax. Now because the law in fact would raise revenue and because it is calculated and collected by the IRS as part of the income tax, the Court deemed it a tax and upheld that only Congress has the authority to pass or change a tax law.
Uh… no. Declaring it a tax (which was a label only applied when it was convenient and discarded when it wasn’t) means that the entire thing should have been scrapped because the law did not go through the proper procedures of passing a tax – it should have started from scratch, in the House. Roberts TOTALLY shirked his duty.
Gosh, wasn’t he also the deciding vote on Carbon pollution too?
Even worse: If it’s a tax then anti-injunction applies and the SC CAN’T rule on it until the tax is applied. So in order to rule when they did they said anti-injunction did not apply. By definition that means it cannot be a tax. It was one of the most twisted rulings ever.
All suppression of atmospheric CO2 enrichment is a bad idea. The more CO2, the greener the planet.
Frans, I agree with you and disagree with you. Yes, more CO2 results in a greener planet and that’s good. But, apart from CO2, the fossil fuel industry pollutes (“real” pollutants, not CO2) the atmosphere.
A case in point is the big cities in China where the air pollution, associated with burning of coal, is so bad they sometimes have to almost shut down a city.
However, when the Chinese get richer, they will be able to clean up that pollution, just as the Western industrial countries did.
I believe they are already working on that
Not that old nostrum again.
The reason why Chinese air is so bad is because they chose not to pay for the pollution control equipment that has been available in the west for over 20 years.
So, the logic of this “we must control fossil fuel pollution because the Chinese are bad actors,” is on a par with saying “we must eliminate municipal government because Chicago and Detroit are corrupt.” Just become someone is a bad actor doesn’t justify imposing controls on otherwise good actors. “We must put all people in jail because some people commit crimes.”
Should have put quotes around ‘libertarian’ not ‘fee’. The LP is becoming about as libertarian as the liberals are liberal.
Liberal-tarians?
I like to distinguish between Libertarians (party members) and libertarians (systematic believers in freedom). This year has just about the lowest overlap ever between them.
Dear Lark,
Good insight. Within the Party, there was a not-very-miscible mixture of semi-Marxist anarchists, Rothbardian anarchists, traditional fiscal conservatives, constitutionalists, Objectivists/Randians, etc. The major internal split was over the issue of anarchism, and its proponents were distinguished by an “end justifies the means” methodology (“praxis”). That was enough for me to walk carefully around them. Their logic was generally as good as their scruples.
I had a very funny moment in a debate I joined, partnered with Robert Poole, then-Editor of Reason Magazine, against Jeffrey Hummel (now at Univ. Hawaii, I think) and someone else. We were debating how miltiary and foreign policy would be conducted in a government or anarchist context (where the anarchists were anarcho-capitalists, wanting to hire out all government services…including deciding who got shot, but that angle was never brought into the limelight). They were opposed to the position Bob and I were arguing. But I had the wit to point out, when I got to the podium, that military and foreign policy decisions would be according to what Bob and I were arguing, for two simple reasons: (1) If our view prevailed, then naturally persons of our view would form such policy. (2) If their view prevailed, all such matters would be hired out to defense companies…who would be staffed by persons such as ourselves, sharing our views, and our policies would therefore prevail. This created a moment of consternation. Hoist by their own petard, as it were.
JOHNSON ISN’T GOING TO WIN ANYWAY !!!
BESIDES, climate change is largely natural as evidenced by the 30 years cycles of warming/cooling going back to (at least) 1850. PLUS, the atmospheric carbon growth rate has tracked temperature since (at least) the inception of MLO in 1958. Reducing emissions wouldn’t combat climate change even if it was “man-caused”…
He’s well aware that he has no chance. The real question is why did the libertarians pick Johnson/Weld?
As far as voting, I don’t want either Trump or Clinton with their lies, half truths and baggage even hanging out in the White House.
Instead, I’ll vote for someone who supports our constitution, freedom and liberty.
Hillary is already all-in for anything that stops fossil fuel use while harming Americans and Trump would change his mind on spending $billions to support renewables whenever he felt like it might help his bottom line or reelection.
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are up front and honest.
They are both for smaller government and more freedom.
I don’t want Clinton or Trump in my wallet nor do I want them in my bedroom, period.
Reading challenged, I see. Gary does want to get into your wallet, to make you pay his carbon “fees.”
Now, I admit he probably won’t be in your bedroom. It’ll be too chilly when you have to turn the thermostat down to 55 in the winter, or too hot when you turn it up to 95 in the summer.
He’ll be busy climbing Mount Denali, anyway. Which is at least cheaper than one trip for Obama – even with the Secret Service having to tag along, he’ll probably only soak the taxpayer (excuse me, “fee payer”) around a quarter mil for each of his vacations.
HAHAHAHAHA. Smaller government in the form of carbon taxes. Smaller government in the form of forced association. Smaller government in the form of “inserting itself into all of our problems.”
Mike, if it’s clear that johnson isn’t going to be prez, then doesn’t it make sense to vote for the “least worst” candidate that can actually win?
It’s an open question as to whether Hillary or Trump are “least worst”. They are both awful, just in different ways.
afonz-Depends. I live in Alabama. The state will go overwhelmingly republican so my vote for Johnson isn’t going to effect the electoral votes. Same if I still lived in Washington state, except they are overwhelmingly democrat. Now if I lived in a battleground state I would consider voting for Trump and although he acts like a baffoon he is still better than Clinton. I am voting for Johnson as he is the closest to my world view. I disagree with him on the carbon fee and open borders but he is still more of a Classic Liberal than the other two. I prefer a small unintrusive government, low taxes, low regulation and a balanced budget. The republicans talk a good game but never deliver,
Valid point, Eric, i live a few doors over in Louisiana and, seeing how it’s a fairly solid red state, i don’t bother voting at all (!) That whole jury duty thing is something i REALLY don’t want to be dealing with…
Libertarian with a capital “L”. A liberal without “benefits” in the far left-far right nexus.
The limited domain of science in both time and space has progressed to liberal extremes. It does, once again, conflate philosophy, fantasy, and faith. People want… no, need to believe.
It seems that scientific mysticism is the secular orthodoxy founded on a pro-choice religion (i.e. selective or arbitrary principles). Their faith is clearly not limited to the fantasy of spontaneous conception, and their religion is not limited to selective or negotiable value. I wonder what else they believe.
Libertarian and liberal are not synonymous. Libertarian is “liberty from government”. Johnson is just another politician who will sell out to power and money.
You could check Johnson’s and Weld’s records before you decide to spread your opinions, falsehoods and conjecture.
Both were two term Republican governors in overwhelming Democrat states.
Both reduced spending.
Both support the US Constitution.
Sounds like they’re more non-partisans than sell-outs.
Yeah, and as soon as they run for a national election they start to pander to who they think will vote for them. That is a sell out in my book.
Weld has a long history of supporting more regulation and fighting for any form of gun control.
NM was spending more after Johnson left than when he started. The state increased 7% p.a. under his administration. Debt was higher during his administration. Yeah, yeah, he vetoed lotsa bills. Yippy. Spending still went up significantly under him. Libertarians talk a good game…
Mr. Worrall, your rant on carbon markets is odd. Mr. Johnson supports a tax on carbon; he says nothing of carbon markets.
[???? .mod]
‘The alternative to a carbon tax is a carbon market, but as the European experience demonstrates, carbon markets lead to massive corruption and inevitable collapse.
The reason is very simple – with a carbon market, unlike a real market, fraud benefits all the market participants.
Fraud benefits the issuers of fake carbon credits – they get to make money for nothing.
Fraud benefits the purchasers of carbon credits – a flood of fake carbon credits keeps prices down.
Fraud benefits market regulators – they get rich turning a blind eye to the fraud.
The only people carbon fraud doesn’t benefit is anyone silly enough to think that market based carbon pricing can make a long term difference to CO2 emissions.’
================================
This has nothing to do with carbon tax. Johnson supports a carbon tax. Then Worrall rants against a carbon market – a different subject. Worrall’s comments are a non sequitur, not related to the post about Johnson.
… a fee — not a tax …
That’s what they said of the cost of not getting your ObamaCare and the SCOTUS said the fee was a tax.
Interestingly enough, according to the constitution all tax bills must originate in the House. ObamaCare originated in the Senate.
Yeah, that bird flew out the window long ago. Just another reason to boot them all out, via ballot or with other means.
Not really.
The US Senate gutted an existing bill passed by the House of Representatives and used it for the ACA.
The fact that such a transparent scam is legally ok is just more evidence of the total corruption of the legal system.
Sigh, the choices are the pothead, the crook and the buffoon. I was leaning pothead, but now I’m leaning stay home.
If you stay home then do not ever bitch about what you get.
Not voting means withdrawing ones support of the system (which is totally broken), Voting for anyone means accepting and supporting the status quo. The system will only change if an overwhelming majority withdraw their support by not voting. As has been attributed to many, if voting could change anything, it would be illegal.
No because the outcome is decided by how many actually vote not based on how many eligible voters there are. So not voting doesn’t do anything. If only 50 people voted in Florida and one side received 26 of those votes, all of Florida’s electoral votes would go to that side.
..If you stay home..YOU ARE VOTING FOR HILLARY…
NO, HE ISN’T.
if you vote for hillary you are voting for hillary
if you stay home you are staying home
this is kindergarten simple- try harder.
Phil R’s razor:
When in doubt between a pothead, a crook and a buffoon, always pick the buffoon. :>)
If nothing else, it could be yuugely entertaining.
🙂 It’s a long time until November and we have the debates yet. I hope the pothead is in them, that will be yuugely entertaining.
Vote for the buffoon! At least he says CAGW is a hoax.
I have to say that Trump is not a buffoon. He has solid positions on policy and is clear-headed on the primacy of energy as the foundation of our economy. You don’t like his style? Get over it. I am glad he is not like typical polished politicians, who are somewhere between psychopaths and mannequins. Trump is a real person, who builds real things in real places and who hires real workers, who are, by evidence, very loyal to him. I work at (big name company), and our future would be more than 100% improved if we were being run by someone like Trump instead of the visionless cipher that has succeeded our previous visionless cipher.
It is all very well to assume a superiority to Trump by looking down your nose at him, but his actual stature in the world is so great, your own posture tends to the extreme of bending over backward.
How solid are his positions if he changes them every few weeks?
He’s a buffoon.
Trump’s positions?
He recognizes that uncontrolled immigration is a problem, even if his solutions are half baked. The Crook, pothead, and I presume the watermellon would all support wide open borders.
He recognizes CAGW as a hoax.
He recognizes that Islam has a terrorism problem.
He recognizes that burdensome taxes are a problem.
Trump may not have the best solutions planned for the ills of the US. But he’d have to go through Congress anyway. And he at least recognizes major problems, unlike his opposition.
Dear MarkW,
If you want to offer specifics, we might talk, but all this chatter of Trump flip-flopping is a canard. He has been very clear about wanting to renegotiate trade bargains to national advantage, growing the economy, controlling the border (and I like the Wall), limiting Islamic immigration, throwing out the special interests, repealing Obamacare, taking care of our veterans, strengthening our military, having a prudent caution about foreign adventures, and promoting all-out development of our energy industries. Have I left out anything? No matter. None of those things have changed, within the normal allowance of developing a one-sentence position into a full program. I would be willing to bet, in the Secret Casino of Fate, that you don’t know a darn thing about any of his positions, all of which are documented by position papers and statements on his website…or you wouldn’t be making such a vacuous and mistaken objection.
Or should we talk about the aspiring Liar-in-Chief who pimped the State Department for bribes and helped get an Ambassador killed?
Not opposing Mr. Clinton is basically admitting you’re ignorant or criminally insane, as far as I’m concerned.
I meant to write Ms Clinton.
Another climate religion, religious nut. What is it with human beings and their insistence to fall for these faith based religions? I can see oppressed poor in poor communities or poor countries grasping for gods to help them out in their misery. These so called educated people thought… Either they are over-educated idiots or they are purposely trying to con people with this garbage.
I always find it fascinating how some humans insist on using themselves as the measure by which all of humanity must be judged. To your mind, faith based religion makes no sense, so you declare that anyone who believes in such must be a fool.
MarkW wrties “some humans insist on using themselves as the measure by which all of humanity must be judged.”
I do not insist on it yet it is so. In what way do you differ?
Anybody who calls a tax a fee shouldn’t be trusted as either an honest politician or a republican or libertarian.
And does Johnson realize that his carbon tax benefits the rich? How so? Because the revenues flowing into the government will result in less need for calls to tax the rich. I’ve read a number of times about how revenues from a carbon tax could be used to pay down the debt, pay for social programs, etc.
Most of the revenues from a carbon tax would be paid by the middle class. Lets not let the collective stupidity that was exploited by the DNC elite to pass obamacare (according to the architect of obamcare, Jonathan Gruber) lead us down another costly and state controlled path to a socialist hell.
The difference between a fee and a tax is that a fee is paid by those who use something where a tax is SUPPOSED to apply to all. For instance, if you check your cable or phone bill, you will see a bunch of fees. If you do not want to pay the fees, do not use cable or phone. That is why the Obamacare fee was relabeled a tax as it applied to those who did NOT use the system.
And in this case, a “fee” on carbon would be paid by all because it would show up in virtually everything we purchased. Using your definition, it’s a tax then.
The rich already pay over 75% of all income taxes, yet there are some who will always whine that it isn’t enough.
If you want to get any money out of a tax, you have to go after the middle class. That’s always been the case. It’s just that the middle class has the votes necessary to ensure that they don’t have to pay for the welfare they are demanding.
^THIS $19TT times.
The middle class is demanding welfare? Why and for what?
Makes more sense for the rich to want welfare. For example, how would they get to enjoy their riches if there were riots everywhere? So they push for welfare and make us pay. Screw that, I want them to pay. And I’m a true conservative. Used to be on the side of the rich but not until I realized that they are making us pay for what they want.
kramer writes “they are making us pay for what they want.”
There is no “us”. What exactly do you and I have in common?
Australia’s Gillard called it a Price on Carbon (Dioxide) when actually it was one huge electricity and refrigeration tax. We just called it the Carbon Tax, twisty words that were supposed to fool us that her Carbon Price was not the same as the Carbon Tax we were never going to have under a government she led.
Consumate Liar – Calling a tax something else is the mark of someone who is not trustworthy. Over the last 9 years we have had three of the worst PMs ever, Gillard ,Rudd and Turnbull. If it wasn’t for Abbott’s all too brief interlude we’d be even further up the creek than we are now. The Soul of our country is nearly gone, I want it back. I want our freedom to speak back, I want to be able to be non PC, I want the Aussie larrikin back. USA – don’t be fooled by taxes in Price/Fee clothing
Lets hope the Senate keeps them honest this term.
Johnson just keeps saying things to make himself unelectable. Besides, a tax by any other name is still a tax.
Mr. Worall: definitely, i agree with the sentiment but i would change/re-direct this last statement of yours: “The only people carbon fraud doesn’t benefit is anyone silly enough to think that market based carbon pricing can make a long term difference to CO2 emissions.
my suggestion: any such carbon tax PURPOSELY SCREWS THE CITIZEN/TAXPAYER … because it robs them of their money — by fraudulent means — which they had earned through their works and efforts.
in other words: it further enslaves fraudulently the citizen/taxpayer by taking their earned salaries and thereby reducing their individual freedoms; conversely, further empowering a centralized command and control government. [doncha’ know: here on the plantation, these days, we do “slavery” a little bit different.]
thereby, step by step, piece by piece, we continue on our march toward totalitarianism … and, so it seems, no one is twisting our collective arms.
no siree: this is not our fathers’ socialist-communist party!
ps: madame hillary — johnson ain’t going to win — may we have another?