Rebutting The Socialist View of Gary Johnson
I recently had the opportunity to read an article published in the Socialist publication entitled “Liberation”. The article was written by a Walter Smolarek and was entitled “Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party: no threat to the system”. The author makes incorrect statement after incorrect statement in trying characterize the plans and goals of Governor Johnson. Of course, I would not expect a socialist to believe in individual freedom from government tyranny, but please – if you want to speak of the goals of a person – be accurate. The article claims that Gov. Johnson represents “more of the same”, comparing his plans to the disastrous actions of our government over the last 100 years.
More of the same? I think not. Of course, the concept of individual liberty and its correlation to reduction of the state will be a foreign concept to a socialist publication such as this. By definition, a socialist puts the state above the individual with the attitude that “you gotta break some eggs to make an omelet”.
That is all well and good, but if those eggs represented individual people, and those people were broken to support the good of the state, how can anyone represent that socialism is beneficial for anyone other than those who intend to thrive off of the work of others.
Governor Gary Johnson gets it. He is absolutely correct that the War on Drugs is the impetus behind a swollen prison system, a dramatic increase in violent crime, and a large percentage of the population of the USA that has a criminal record which precludes them from being productive citizens. Had the government chosen to handle this issue in a more mature fashion instead of legislating to destroy 1 out of 4 American lives via law enforcement, the picture would be much, much different.
Leave it to a socialist to defend the state which is responsible for this disaster and to encourage them to keep making oppressive laws that keep the thumb of the state firmly on the backs of the people. The author of this article chooses to blame racism. Well, let me ask you… if the activities that resulted in the imprisonment of tens of millions of non-violent Americans were not illegal, would your argument become a complete non-issue? Enforcers would not be targeting minorities for arrest for drug possession if drug possession were not a crime. You are putting the cart before the horse. Does racism exist? Most definitely it does. Do some in law enforcement abuse their authority? Yep. But the real criminals are the legislators and regulators that create one possibility after another to throw people in cages at the behest of government, and ruin the lives of people that harmed no one.
The largest stretch taken by the author was to somehow blame capitalism for racism. Sorry, but having the ability to earn your keep without the intrusion of law and regulation, is colorblind. A person of any race, sex, religion or sexual orientation can decide to try to earn a living on their own, or to take from their neighbors for their support. In reality, it seems that a socialist society would encourage a person to take from their neighbors and be unproductive, and a capitalist society would encourage the opposite. Smolarek’s color argument fails miserably.
The author takes offense that Governor Johnson’s description of “nation building” does not go far enough to describe the atrocities that the USA has promulgated in the name of security. I prefer Johnson’s approach of actually doing something instead of simply complaining. Johnson would create a defense strategy of non-interventionism, i.e. a real defense instead of the offense that we have been using which has created so many enemies to the United States. Sorry, if you wanted more adjectives… I guess reasonable action will just have to do.
The author makes the attempt to state that Governor Johnson actually supports imperialism. Of course, this statement is strongly incorrect, but what I find amusing is that in one breath the author states that imperialism is bad… while strongly advocating imperialism… so long as the force used is to impose the beliefs of the author on the people of the world. We learned all too well that our attempts to force democracy on nations that do not want nor comprehend it was a miserable failure. If people were free to make their own decisions, the world would have its best chance at real peace. The non-interventionist plan of Johnson would bring us this peace, in replacement of authoritarian attempts to force one person’s view on the life of another.
What is really amusing here is the statement that socialists view the role of the military as having to impose the will of socialists on the rest of the world. So, clearly a socialist would not comprehend that authoritarianism is a bad thing to the individual that wants to create their own path in life. Remember the USSR? Do you remember what that stood for? Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. So, if the concept of long lines for toilet paper, the state taking the right away from you to choose your own career, and eventually your right to leave the country, and more appeals to you… good for you. That is not the purpose of the USA. Our founders experienced tyranny. We cannot make government tyranny a part of our long term plan.
Every statement made by this author was in support of the state over the rights of the individual. School choice should be up to the parents… not the state. When too much power is given to the state regarding education, the curriculum required ends up solidifying the power of the state. It’s a vicious cycle.
The author supports regulation as some sort of punishment to large corporations instead of the reality of the situation. Regulation helps large corporations that can afford to comply, at the detriment of the small business that does not have the resources to keep up. Regulation is crony capitalism. It rewards the large corporations which support elected officials by eliminating smaller and more nimble competition.
Let me ask you one question, Mr. Smolarek, if you had your life to live over again, and one by one the choices you made for yourself were overruled by the state, would you feel that you lived a satisfying life? This is the concept you advocate when you place state authority over the will of the people. What a sad life when you take away free will.
* Steve Kerbel is a businessman, author, and former Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States.
Latest posts by Steve Kerbel (see all)
- An Unexpected Key to Freedom - June 26, 2017
- Fear and Ego are Bad Reasons to Make Choices - June 2, 2017
- Taxation may indeed be theft (or extortion)… but so what? - May 27, 2017