R J Harris: Let's chill on "Gary Johnson Mania"!

Hello all,

R J Harris is a candidate for the LP's presidential nomination. In a
preface to his "Money Bomb" plea, R J Harris said:

8:50am Mar 7

Clearly the GOP has screwed us again but even if Ron is not on the
ballot in2012, his platform and principles still can be. There is time
left to help nominate a Liberty Candidate for President from the
Libertarian Party. Please help

Contrary to both Ron Paul's and RJ Harris' platforms, Gary Johnson
supports keeping GITMO open, "humanitarian" war, giving foreign aid to
Israel, the "Fair Tax", accepting federal matching funds for his
campaign, aggressive and intrusive regulation of small restaurants,
keeping the Federal Reserve system, the death penalty...and the list
goes on. HE IS NOT a Libertarian. In the wake of what happened to our
Champion Ron Paul on Super Tuesday we have to help RJ stand up and fight
for us like never before.

Won't you please help get the word out about this champion of Liberty?
He needs your help right now before its too late to stop the LP from
making another Bob Barr mistake.


3/7/12 Money Bomb – Defeat Two Party Tyranny | RJ Harris for

www.rjharris2012.com <http://www.rjharris2012.com/>

I've heard Gary Johnson speak several times when he appeared on Fox
Business Network and when he was at the Republican debates, the two
times he appeared. I also heard him during the February 21 Manhattan LP
Convention, which I attended. I think those who met him will agree when
I say Gary is an articulate libertarian-like supporter, a sweet, easy
going guy who you wouldn't mind introducing to one of your female kins.

Still, R J Harris accused Gary Johnson of not being a libertarian.
Perhaps this is just political posturing on Harris' part, but I don't
think his accusation should be dismissed. Can we at least take a time
out on the veritable "Gary Johnson Mania" and examine the reasons for
Harris' accusation? Perhaps after we examine them we might even decide
to put the kibosh on Johnson, himself. ("Beware of false prophets and
fake Coach handbags.")

Harris gave me pause, however, when he faulted Johnson for accepting
federal matching funds for his campaign. Frankly, I don't think there's
anything wrong with that. I know this stance is both an apostasy and an
anathema for most libertarians, but guess what? My stance is supported
by none other than the great, prototypical, quasi libertarian, Ayn Rand.

Remember when a student of Rand's felt badly about receiving a
government scholarship? How could the student countenance taking the
scholarship and not feel hypocritical? Rand's answer was, in part:

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long
as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare
statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them;
those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault
lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the
rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to
seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of
others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally
guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is
legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to
add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they
do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute
the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the
welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should
take it . . . .

But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund
of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom
if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the
welfare-state administration.

("The Question

So, if Ayn Rand were here today, she would no doubt tell Harris to chill
on Johnson for accepting federal matching funds for his campaign, and
take those funds himself as restitution, since he opposes all forms of
"welfare statism" and especially to advance the cause of freedom by not
leaving all that money to those motherfuckers.

Anyhow, on a related matter, I''m not sure, but I think Harris' "J"
don't mean anything like the"S" in Ulysses S Grant, which Grant admitted
didn't mean anything. (Who's buried in Grant's tomb? Ulysses S Grant, of
course. Who'd you think? Jimmy Hoffa? JFK's real trigger man? Obama's
real father?) Harry Truman's "S" didn't mean anything either.

I hope Harris' "J" don't mean anything,because it would be a nice
affectation. You think maybe Harris did one better by not having the "R"
mean anything either?

So, please don't dismiss R J Harris' accusation that Gary Johnson is not
a libertarian. And, just as important, please don't dismiss R J Harris'
candidacy for the LP's presidential nomination, because as that great
Yankee slugger, Ron Swaboda, once said, "It ain't over till the sun sets
in the East," or something like that.

Thank you for your attention.


I definitely agree with Alton on all his points, and especially on the
point about when Harris faulted Johnson for accepting federal matching
funds for his campaign.

In order to win the game you have to play by the rules. The rules as far as
elections are concerned is raise as much money as you can and spend it on
the campaign.

Thus, anybody who does not take federal matching funds if available cannot
be considered to be serious about trying to win.

I do think we should consider the other complaints by Harris about Johnson,
however. I do not think that the Libertarian Party should give any
consideration to a candidate who wants to continue to spend more than $3
billion in foreign aid to Israel instead of other nations. Why should we be
even considering engaging in a conflict with Iran during such a difficult
economic time at home? We have Republican Candidates who talk openly about
bombing Iran when at the very earliest it will take five years before Iran
has a nuclear bomb if indeed it ever has one. The Republican party had
fielded a bunch of crazies like Santorum and Gingrich who keep citing
religious reasons for waging war on other countries, not to mention Perry
who said we should attack Iraq again.

We need to find out Gary Johnson's views on these subjects. We should not
be led into a Bob Barr-like disaster that occurred four years ago.

Sam Sloan

Let's be careful here -- the argument that we must play by the rules in order to win, and that those who do not do so are not "serious" and should therefore be dismissed, is a dangerous "law-and-order" type philosophy. Don't forget that "the rules" say whatever those who write the rules want them to say! What if they are written to mandate acceptance of something absolutely unacceptable to libertarians, such as swearing a loyalty oath to obey the directives of the president (even if unconstitutional and unlibertarian)? There's nothing sacred or inviolable about government laws. Chattel slavery was once the law!

  In the case of *presidential* candidates, however, the funding for matching funds is not coercively obtained, but comes from money voluntarily donated by Americans via the $3 check-off on their tax returns. So I don't think it's wrong for libertarian presidential candidates to accept this funding and spend it to advance the libertarian cause.

  And while Gary Johnson is no Bob Barr (or to give credit the right way around, Bob Barr is no Gary Johnson), I agree with Sam that we should remain vigilant to ensure we do not repeat a 2008-type disaster. If Johnson faced a serious challenge from another dubious candidate like Barr or Wayne Allyn Root, that would be a strong argument for supporting him, but given that Johnson appears to be the overwhelming current favorite and will likely get the LP nomination barring the unexpected entry of someone like Ron Paul or Jesse Ventura into the race, I propose that the best strategy for Libertarians who understand that any "success" which does not involve upholding libertarianism is a hollow victory, is to give our backing to whomever seems like the most principled, radical libertarian.

  With luck, this strategy will give us someone in the VP slot who matches that description, and Johnson will get the message that members of our party expect him to advocate a strong pro-freedom message and not give the impression that any coercive tax, any aggressive war, or any foreign aid is acceptable.

Love & Liberty,
                                    ((( starchild )))