Gary Johnson 2016, what went wrong?

[Großmann]

The issue isn't just birth. Even if you moved there voluntarily, being taxed and regulated under threat of force without a way to refuse still isn't consent. The absence of choice at the start only makes the coercion more obvious, but the core problem is ongoing aggression dressed up as a contract

What is the solution?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

What is the solution?

If the problem is that coercion is being mislabeled as contract, then the only resolution is to stop treating coercion as legitimate

 

[Großmann]

If the problem is that coercion is being mislabeled as contract, then the only resolution is to stop treating coercion as legitimate

What I mean is, how do you solve the problem of some people in a society not wanting to be in that society?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

What I mean is, how do you solve the problem of some people in a society not wanting to be in that society?

Society just means people living among each other. The real question is whether their interaction is governed by voluntary norms (property, contract, association) or by decrees that override those norms. In the first case, anyone who doesn't want to participate can disassociate. In the second, refusal is impossible because dissent itself is treated as a violation.

 

[Großmann]

Society just means people living among each other. The real question is whether their interaction is governed by voluntary norms (property, contract, association) or by decrees that override those norms. In the first case, anyone who doesn't want to participate can disassociate. In the second, refusal is impossible because dissent itself is treated as a violation.

What happens in a society where someone doesn’t want to abide by a contract or some sort of rule?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

What happens in a society where someone doesn’t want to abide by a contract or some sort of rule?

Depends on the rule. If breaking it means taking someone else's property, like if I keep a car I didn't pay for, then enforcement just restores what was theirs. If it's a promise with no property at stake, then walking away isn't aggression, it's just flaking.
State decrees, however, create obligations no one agreed to.

 

[The Hardest R]

Sure I can, because at one point many were the Dale Gribble / Ron Swanson type: recognized government's overreach relative to its size & scope during the Founders' time, just a bit naive about nuking all laws on morality (because they themselves were generally moral, and assumed the country was still full of generally moral people).

When Trump offered the Lolberts the same thing he offered Tulsi & RFK ("we have common interests, support me and you'll get some of what you want and more influence than you've ever had"), and they said nah, we'd rather focus on molestering fetishists and be completely shut out of power, it was the ultimate "principled loser" decision...which conservatives have a history of.

Libertarians are against government overreach because “overreach” includes enforcing the age of consent, making drugs illegal, spying on militias (read: a bunch of shitkickers getting drunk and doing dumb shit like sawing off a shotgun and selling it to an undercover agent), or some crazy shit like adding fluoride to water. The muh principles set is a very small portion of libertarians. This is how it’s been for decades. We just see libertarians as the freaks and losers they are because of the internet. In the past, you had to sign up for various newsletters if you wanted to find out what they actually believe.

Third parties are often seen as a joke in the United States. Sure we had Perot and Wallace who got significant amounts of votes. For the latter though, it was during a very chaotic election and the race riots during the 1960s played a huge role in Wallace's appeal. But modern third parties are seen as a way to throw away your vote as a protest green for democrats and libertarians for republicans, and wind up making states closer during elections when both candidates are unpopular. Also many Americans don't want Libertarian policies, and won't want to vote for someone who has no chance.

Perot did well because he was a harmless goofball and people were getting tired of neoconservatism. You’ll never get well adjusted people going third party because those people prefer to swim with the current/system.

You are spot on, most libertarian policies are shit. People like roads, bridges, and stuff like that. The system sucks but libertarians have no viable alternatives, just platitudes. Libertarianism requires a utopia even more grandiose than communism to be feasible.

 

[LeChampion1992]

Gary Johnson failed for several reasons.
1. He failed to read the room.
2. He choose the worst candidates possible.
3. The libertarian convention of 2016 turned into the most unprofessional shitshow one could imagine. Seriously anyone remember the fat naked loser who ended up being outed as an antifa shill?
4. Trump couldn't be stumped.

 

[Taser Confetti]

outed as an antifa shill

Bro, third the party are “libertarian socialists” at this point. Which is just a euphemism for antifa too lazy or cowardly to go participate in black bloc tactics.

The other third are AnCaps/Agorists aka people that might have gainful employment so they’re not completely down the SovCit pipeline.

 

[soulgains]

He was a goofy, unelectable retard who gave off the vibe of a creepy uncle to most people.

 

[Iron Jaguar]

had a chance at one point to challenge Trump and Hillary, at least in my opinion

Then your opinion is wrong and hopelessly naive. Johnson never ever had a chance. Bernie had more of a chance than Johnson. No one takes libertarian seriously. They are a lolcow political movement.
Normal people don't like libertarians because they don't trust them. Libertarians are seen as people who won't pick a side.

 

[Athena Save Us!]

The system sucks but libertarians have no viable alternatives, just platitudes.

They have plans, it just depends on whether you think they're viable or good ideas. Case in point, Ron Paul's plan: https://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/10/17/plan.to.restore.america.pdf

People want their welfare state for all their tax dollars to fuel our insane military and foreign policy. Yes, that includes giving gibs to Jews (if you've been properly bribed by AIPAC) or using it to free Palestine (if you want to do what no other Arab nation will do because they know how insane Hamas fags are).

Gary Johnson first ran as a Republican, same as Ron Paul did. This split the Libertarian vote between them, which made some angry. It also highlighted the differences in policy between the two, and since Ron Paul had already amassed a following, Gary Johnson was never going to be able to compete. He wasn't anti-authoritarian enough, picked an awful VP, and didn't have much in-depth knowledge of multiple issues.

When Ron Paul was on stage, the 90-second response time was his bane because he was one of the only candidates whom the moderators actually forced to stay within the time limit. He had a tendency to explain why his position, which sounded insane sometimes, actually made sense when you look at the historical precedents that led us down the road to our current system. Everything from foreign policy to monetary policy, he had a lecture behind it. Gary Johnson just shot from he hip and usually had no idea what he was talking about.