~~~~Make an educated decision, this is a long post~~~~

While it is true that Sanders and Johnson are not the same, it is important to understand the philosophy that underpins Johnson’s position and decisions. Only then can a former Sander’s supporter make an educated decision on whether or not to support Johnson.

I have been a long time Libertarian and I have talked with many Sander’s supporters over the last year or so. Most who I have talked to have found the libertarian mindset to make sense, once they have gotten over the misinformation they have heard.

First, let me sort something out for some of you that the author of this article brought up:

~~~~~~~Background~~~~~~~

“ In fact, this “small government” ideology is a lingering by-product of the racist counter-ideology expressed by conservatives in the 1960s in response to civil rights.”

The author is confusing a perverse application of classical liberal rhetoric with the whole of classical liberalism. Libertarian (small government)philosophy is based on principles that gained footing during the Enlightenment period, particularly in the 18th century. This is why you see many libertarians who will quote Smith, Locke, Madison and Jefferson frequently. Another period of relative importance was the emergence of Austrian economics beginning with Menger in the 19th century leading to Mises, Rothbard, Hayek and others. Though not all of these economists considered themselves libertarians. The anarchist movement has also attached itself to the libertarian moniker, though they obviously disapprove of anyone getting elected. :P

What some are confusing are several, non-related movements involving small government. 1. Was the former Jim Crow Dixiecrats who wanted to preserve segregation through state legislation. 2. Was the classical liberals (later libertarians)who wanted governments at all levels out of their personal lives. 3. Were the neo-liberals, spearheaded by the Monetarist movement most notably led by Milton Friedman and are primarily interested in economics and monetary supply manipulation(think Reaganomics).

To say that Johnson’s philosophy is in any way related to the Dixiecrats is absurd. The Dixiecrats wanted to used state power as a means to impose their viewpoint. Johnson on the other hand has done the opposite.

Also, unlike monetarists (Reaganomics) Johnson cut taxes across the board, not just as an incentive for the rich. He also, as the author said, does not support monetary supply manipulation. (stimulus)

~~~~~Philosophy~~~~~

Libertarianism is about consent, a concept that I believe many former progressives hold dear. Rather than limiting the topic of consent to private social interactions, libertarians expand it to the consent of the governed. To understand this, consider a scenario.

Imagine that, one day, a federal lawmaker decrees that contraception of any kind is outlawed. At that point, whether you agree with his or her decision or not, you are given no other option than to hope it may be overturned one day. This is the problem with federal decisions, as they are “all or nothing” making them very vulnerable to changes in federal power. However, if this were instead left up to the states, some states might outlaw it and others would permit it. The population would move accordingly and live within a state that represented what they thought was right. Ultimately, the more popular right would propagate overtime, and be more secure than if it were forced through by federal decree. This is because a federal lawmaker would have to contend with 50 separate sets of laws versus just one.

The more you separate power, the more you are honoring the consent of the citizens of your nation. Ideally, according to libertarians, most laws should be on the local level so that the politicians can be held accountable.

What about the environment? While it isn’t a central platform of the party, it still is addressed by many libertarians. Most believe that property rights would deter the over-consumption and misapplication of resources. The market has a way of forcing conservation. Consider the era of $3+ gallon gas. Almost everyone stopped buying SUVs and immediately bought more efficient or alternative technologies. People also drove less, cutting carbon emissions.

What about abortion, gay rights, and other common progressive points? Libertarians have absolutely no issue with who you marry,or what you do with your body and that includes drugs. Rather than legislating “protections” as the author put it, libertarians simply say you are only breaking the law if you are harming each other. This means that Westboro Baptist Church can still protest, but the moment someone attacks an abortion clinic, they are violating the law. The point is, you do not need the government’s go ahead or denial for anything you do for yourself without hurting other citizens.

However, and this is where some Sander’s supporters may initially take issue -bear with me, it also means no one else is on the hook for your decisions. While many libertarians still support some form of a government safety net, it would be limited to only those unable to care for themselves (elderly, disabled, or children.) and should be managed locally rather than federally. There is no public subsidization or bail outs, meaning that no business is “too big to fail.” A low (or some believe no) minimum wage meaning you have to negotiate your own wage if you want something higher.

Contrary to most outsiders’ impressions, many libertarians do believe in some public goods, such as roads, courts, police, fire, and military. However, anything beyond the essentials is subject to extreme scrutiny. Some, the anarchists, believe in no government at all, but every party has its more radical elements.

The reason for this belief is not arbitrary, nor is it evil. It is rooted in both the classical liberal belief that each person is able to chart their own course as well as firmly established economic principles. Subsidies, protectionism, price floors (like the minimum wage) distort the market and cause “dead weight loss” which leads to less economic prosperity and more poverty. Market distortions theory led to Fredrich Hayek’s Nobel Prize in economics, though it has been ignored in favor of stimulus, bailouts, and pretty much everything the Occupy Wall Street people were against in 2008. Many are afraid of industrial era abuses, but any actual contractual abuse would be against the “harm principle” I discussed before and would be against the law. Besides, protectionist laws like tariffs allow big business to manipulate the government into favors, something that libertarians despise.

There is not enough that I could write to express the views of all libertarians, because that is impossible. As far as Johnson, he isn’t perfect in my opinion but I think he is the only candidate with a position that focuses on limited government along with a record to prove that he means it. He has long been a vocal opponent to the war on drugs as well as foreign wars and shows sincerity with his desire to stay out of other people’s business, bedrooms and lives.

Choose who you wish, but I will be voting for Johnson.