The NSA Would Be Eliminated Under President Gary Johnson (thehill.com) 412
An anonymous reader writes: Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson says he'd sign an executive order eliminating America's National Security Agency if he wins the 2016 election. And he's also forcefully arguing that domestic surveillance of internet activity and phone calls in the United States is worse than in China. Johnson took issue with an interviewer at The Daily Beast who pointed out that China monitors political dissidents, saying "What do you call the NSA and the satellites that are trained on us and the fact that 110 million Verizon users are having everything we do on our cell phones being data-collected?"
Johnson also wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, replacing both income taxes and corporate taxes with a single federal consumption tax, and says he'd be willing to sign legislation eliminating the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Commerce, which he says fuels "crony capitalism". "I'll sign legislation to eliminate any federal agency that they present me with."
Johnson has also said that if he were elected President, he'd pardon Edward Snowden.
Johnson also wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, replacing both income taxes and corporate taxes with a single federal consumption tax, and says he'd be willing to sign legislation eliminating the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Commerce, which he says fuels "crony capitalism". "I'll sign legislation to eliminate any federal agency that they present me with."
Johnson has also said that if he were elected President, he'd pardon Edward Snowden.
If shove came to push... (Score:2, Insightful)
Far more likely that the NSA would eliminate him.
Re:If shove came to push... (Score:5, Funny)
Far more likely that the NSA would eliminate him.
They'd try, but it's ok. Captain America wouldn't stand for that anymore than he stood for SHIELD's bullshit.
I mean, if we're going to talk about the fictional pop-culture portrayal of the NSA, Captain America is fair game, right?
Look, I don't like what they're doing anymore than you do. They're way exceeding their authority, they shouldn't be allowed to collect any data domestically. But they're not fucking assassinating political candidates or office holders. If we start using that type of hyperbole, we stop getting taken seriously when we complain about the shit they ARE doing.
Re:If shove came to push... (Score:4, Informative)
But they're not fucking assassinating political candidates or office holders.
Of course not, GP has mistakenly associated to the NSA what actually is a CIA job.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
??? You think there's no way the NSA would ever support a Trump nomination?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's unlikely. Big, powerful, nearly-unaccountable organizations like the NSA would prefer someone a little more... politically entrenched. Trump, unlike a career politician, would actually be capable of saying "fuck these three-letter agencies, tear them all down". Don't take that as me saying he actually would, but he's capable of doing it, and the NSA knows it. ... I can't believe I just said something positive about Trump. Ugh. Our political climate is a fecal monsoon.
Actually, what positive thing you just said about Trump is the very reason he is as popular as he is now. The man is a self-funded, non-politician and that is what makes him so popular. Like him or not, voting for Trump sends a message to the government that "hey, all you politicians fucked up so bad we'd rather have THIS guy" Trump already has more than enough money and power, which makes him less susceptible to bribery. He has little to gain from being the president other than the chance to, well, "Make A
Re: (Score:2)
But they're not fucking assassinating political candidates or office holders. If we start using that type of hyperbole, we stop getting taken seriously when we complain about the shit they ARE doing.
When we actually have some politicians who aren't part of the elite then and only then will we see if they aren't assassinating people. Why would they assassinate their own team, which both Democrats and Republicans are?
Re:If shove came to push... (Score:5, Interesting)
NSA people work in big office buildings, in a corporate-like environment; they're tightly controlled. It's not like the CIA used to be where you were in a field office somewhere and your superiors weren't always 100% sure what you were doing.
Re:If shove came to push... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I was in Idaho in the mid to late 1990s (twin falls area). There was some Arabic looking guy found hanging from a tree with his hands and feet duct taped behind his back. Everyone was talking about it, plenty of people saw it before the cops cut him down. A few days later, the news paper said the sheriff suspected it as an apparent suicide and the coroner backed this idea.
You will believe what they want you to believe, whether you believe that or not. It doesn't matter.
Empty Words (Score:3, Insightful)
He knows, we know, he will never have to make good on any of his campaign promises or boasts. He is 100% certain to lose the election.
He can promise anything he wants and it's meaningless. So why not go for the big ones: abolish the IRS but bring a efficient and fair tax enforcement, dismantle the Fed and have a strong monetary policy, kill off Wall Street and at the same time promote free enterprise, yadda, yadda.
Singling out only the universally unpopular NSA ist what a coward would do.
And he means it .. literally .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personal point:
keeping the secret agencies in check & under control = good/wise
abolishing everything = idiotic
bolstering secret agencies further = equally idiot as abolishing them
Hint:
Never choose an extreme, because you can certainly be sure that you are wrong even when you are right.
Re:And he means it .. literally .. (Score:4, Interesting)
Why? What does the NSA actually do that makes the least difference to you on a daily basis... Other than waste your taxpayer dollars to strip you of any pretense of privacy, of course?
Even the Department of Education - Don't mistake them for having anything to do with actual "education": the Department does not: establish schools and colleges; develop curricula; set requirements for enrollment and graduation; determine state education standards; or develop or implement testing to measure whether states are meeting their education standards [ed.gov]. They do little more than enforce discriminatory racial quotas by deciding who to throw our tax dollars at.
Re:And he means it .. literally .. (Score:5, Informative)
Now, if you want to talk about an agency that's been horribly toxic to civil liberties, and really is not serving a positive purpose at all, to abolish, why don't we talk about the DEA?
SELinux gains value through software freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
To my mind SELinux's value comes from it being free software. The freedoms of free software allow us to vet, run, share, and modify SELinux and make sure it does what we need it to do. Coming from NSA is nice because I'm sure the NSA hires skilled programmers who worked on SELinux, but I'm not going to trust any non-free software coming from the NSA because non-free software (regardless of purpose or stated intent) is untrustworthy.
The drug war (the US's longest war?), which seems intimately tied to the Drug Enforcement Agency, certainly is a horror.
Re:And he means it .. literally .. (Score:5, Interesting)
Which part of the NSA is it which sabotages encryption standards?
Re: (Score:3)
While I also believe that many of these agencies need to be scaled back, yours is an extremely simplistic view that ignores most of what these agencies actually do.
Indeed, he reminds me of some famous words:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Quick, let's centralize the destruction of cultures in the US. Last time we did that we were very successful. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Because protecting Texas's right to teach Creationism is such an important cultural feature that needs preserving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And he means it .. literally .. (Score:5, Informative)
Yikes, no citations. Let's fix that. The following is from the Swedish government education site. Executive summary: Sweden has centralized and uniform funding, entrance exams, curriculum, teacher training/certification, and grading. Even independent charter schools must follow the same system!
https://sweden.se/society/education-in-sweden/ [sweden.se]
The one with clogs & windmills (Score:2)
Maybe he's thinking of Switzerland.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure if he goes through enough countries, he'll find one that matches what he thinks should be the proper way to run an education system.
In Canada, the provinces are responsible for education, and the Federal government has no direct role, as per the British North America Act. Mind you, Provincial governments do run education systems in a fairly centralized fashion.
Re: (Score:3)
This has been an ongoing challenge for educational systems in the US, although it is one of those things which must not be named.
Re: (Score:3)
Calling every observation about the sometimes negative consequences of cultural diversity racist discourages any and all conversation about the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And he means it .. literally .. (Score:4)
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” -- Barry Goldwater
Re: (Score:3)
Justice without mercy is tyranny. --E'Jéi Osborne
Extremism in any direction is nuts. Me.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Further, since justice without mercy is tyranny, you cannot have liberty under such a condition.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Personal point:
keeping the secret agencies in check & under control = good/wise
abolishing everything = idiotic
bolstering secret agencies further = equally idiot as abolishing them
Hint:
Never choose an extreme, because you can certainly be sure that you are wrong even when you are right.
Somebody else had some thoughts on similar choices in the past which are to a large extent being faced by the American people again, in this election.
https://youtu.be/qXBswFfh6AY [youtu.be]
"Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.
I have
Re: (Score:3)
This is why I can't seriously support the Libertarian party. They have some views I agree with, but they miss the fundamental truth that humans are social animals, and governments are just an outgrowth of our society. Their idea that our natural state is to be holed up in a house blasting away at anyone who steps on the lawn is based on pure ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
The real world is that Congress, no matter what its particular constitution, isn't going to let the President tear the Federal government to pieces, nor, if history is any judge, will it allow him to shutter large swathes of intelligence gathering.
It's all hypothetical anyways. The most Johnson can do is just guarantee Clinton a wider margin of victory. As harsh as it is, the electoral college system really doesn't give a third party candidate any real chance, but does allow such a candidate to completely f
What a revolution (Score:2)
If this guy actually got elected. We all hate the status quo, but give us something thats not going to throw everything up in the air, and ruin the country. None of the candidates are any good. How bout Bones for President?
Re: (Score:3)
How bout Bones for President?
The current political system? It's dead, Jim.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"libertarianism" == "mafia rule" (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no "capitalism" under "libertarianism". Without government to enforce laws, it all devolves into "strong man with big stick takes everything".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"libertarianism" == "mafia rule" (Score:4, Insightful)
A couple of points:
1. I'm not and have never been a member of the Libertarian Party. So your comment about it seems pretty irrelevant to this conversation, just like the LP generally is in elections.
2. Just because you don't see any difference in scenarios, doesn't mean no one else does. As previously stated, without a single monopoly government provider running everything, you might have an opportunity for a bit of freedom. Competition in services has improved everything it's been allowed to and increased wealth in the economically "free-er" nations tremendously over time. Why not give that a try somewhere for government services as well? If the government ran farms and grocery stores as a civil service monopoly, you'd be protesting and asking "How will people get food?" if someone suggested maybe they didn't need to have a government monopoly on that service. This has literally happened in other countries.
How to gain influence... (Score:3)
If the Libertarians wanted any real influence, they'd declare one of the primary parties candidates as theirs and support him/her. Then after the election if that candidate won and say 'we delivered x votes to put you over the top, you owe us, here's what we want you to support'. As it is, all they do is suck just enough votes away to swing the election from one primary party candidate to the other which just irritates the other parties and doesn't make any friends.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Libertarians are inherently anti-cooperation as it smacks too much of socialism?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that Libertarians are anticooperative, it's that they're too absolutist to hold their noses long enough to work inside one of the main parties.
Re: (Score:3)
"We delivered x votes to put you over the top, you owe us, here's what we want you to sup-"
"No."
"But-"
"No."
"We-"
"No."
Re:How to gain influence... (Score:4, Informative)
What you're talking about is the Republican Liberty Caucus [rlc.org]. Small l-libertarian, as opposed to the Libertarian Party. Actually has Congressional supporters, etc..., as opposed to only a couple of local school board members and a dog catcher or something like that.
No chance (Score:2, Insightful)
I have said it before and I'll say it again - In the US you don't have the luxury of voting for the person you want to be president, you have to vote against the person you don't want to be president. That leaves no room for third parties.
The fact that two outsiders made such big inroads on both sides of the aisle gives me hope that after Clinton wins this election that there will be enough popular support for replacing the voting system with something like run-off voting. Especially if Trump and Sanders
Dead wrong on 2 of 3 but I'm still voting for him (Score:5, Insightful)
Throw the baby out with the bathwater much? (Score:2)
This strikes me as a Very Bad Idea
Review their processes more thoroughly sure... have more have more accountability for their actions, certainly... but get rid of them? I don't want to imagine the can of worms that would open.
So he's just like every other candidate (Score:2)
Promising things he knows full well only Congress can do, that are beyond presidential authority. and knowing full well that no Congress that sits during the next term ever would. Empty promises of ridiculous things.
I'm not sure he could even pardon Snowden without Snowden first being convicted, technically.
Consumption tax? (Score:2)
No thanks. The tax should always be based on how much you harvest from society.
Gary Jonhson (Score:2)
Practical libertarian party (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a lot of sympathy for libertarian ideas, but party leaders need to start thinking how to win elections in a democracy that includes voters with diverse political convictions. I can think of a platform that will appeal to a healthy fraction of Democrats and Republicans:
Sounds like a good Vice-President (Score:2)
Uh, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
What, like Guantanamo Bay was going to be closed under President Obama?
Johnson vs .... (Score:3)
Evinrude.
Now, that's a real runoff.
Gary Johnson on NSA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Too Bad He's Shown His True Colors (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too Bad He's Shown His True Colors (Score:5, Funny)
Right now, Juan Perón and Ferdinand Marcos could run and I couldn't say if they'd be the worst choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, Francisco Franco is still dead. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A true role model for many, many politicians.
Re:The fringe elements will never become the POTUS (Score:4, Funny)
Britney Spears or Pamela Anderson probably have.
Re: (Score:3)
This. Too many people still believe that just a change of President will make everything better. If the people don't effect a massive replacement of "establishment" politicians with true representatives of the people, any individual or few threats to the establishment will be dealt with as necessary. This is worth billions to a few people calling the shots, getting dirty is what they do.
The gooks are inside the wire people, it's time to call "broken arrow".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Eh I dunno, I think it's probably best to just look at a political candidate for what they can do rather than what they say they'll do. For example, he can't abolish either the NSA or the IRS; the former is within the domain of the senate, and the later is within the domain of congress. He can pardon Edward Snowden however, which is basically the only sane thing I've heard out of any of the major candidates for this election year.
If on the one hand we have a giant douche, and on the other we have a turd san
Re:Too Bad He's Shown His True Colors (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the laws violate the Constitution, then the Judiciary will point that out, and those bad laws will be invalidated
+5 Funny?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think there is a law that says that there must be an NSA.
Wikipedia says that originally the NSA was via a National Security Council Intelligence Directive, which I believe was authorized under the National Security Act of 1947.
It looks like later the National Security Agency Act of 1959 gave official authorization for the President to keep running the NSA but it's all "is authorized to" or "may do this" and I don't see a whole lot that could be strictly interpreted as requiring an NSA.
I'm not a lawy
headline is misleading (Score:5, Informative)
The headline makes it sound a bit more radical than it is.
First his beef with the NSA is domestic spying. He says he'd still have "the sattelites" but make sure they were outward looking not domestic. By "sattelites" I am fairly sure he's using that as a proxy for all the NSA does in scooping domestic intelligence. And after all isn't that exactly what gets slashdotter's all uppity. The things that Snowden pointed out? So really for slashdot this is bowling a strike.
Second, a federal consumption tax. Now normally a consumption tax is regressive: if you spend your whole pay check, as a poor person, then you are paying a greater share of the tax. That's not quite as bad as it sounds. Even if you have a progressive income tax, Where people richer than you or corporations pay income taxes they want higher wages or higher margins and so it drives up the cost of the poor person's consumables. You can make a consumption tax somewhat anti-regressive by making any residual income taxes more progressive. I don't know if Johnston is planning such compensation. I'd like to see his numbers. But I'm not going to flatly reject it.
Eliminatine the dept of education? Well as long as states can manage it, okay. I'm sure congress will tie the fed kickback to the states to educational standards so things won't go to hell in mississippi or texas.
Re:headline is misleading (Score:5, Interesting)
On the consumption tax, as I understand it, he's proposing eliminating state and federal income tax, instituting a flat-rate consumption tax instead. Taxes for purchases of "basic necessities" would be prebated (which actually appears to amount to a universal basic income in the form of a check to anyone holding a social security number).
Re: (Score:3)
Consumption taxes are probably the worst type of tax if you're trying to be progressive, even if you include some kind of "necessity" exemption:
Who defines "basic necessity"? Is the amount based on prices in rural AR or San Francisco? "Prebates" are a terrible idea, just as are any fixed nominal money amount for, say, standard deductions or personal exemptions or UBI or "Fair Tax" style necessity exemptions. That type of exemption/rebate does
Re:headline is misleading (Score:4, Informative)
What if I'm not trying to be progressive? But, for the record, it does end up being progressive up to the poverty level, since people making less than that actually end up with more spending power than they would have had without it.
There's no "Fair Tax" style exemptions - that's why I support it. As soon as you start making exemptions and exceptions, everybody wants to be the exemption and the exception, and that's what fuels lobbyists. The only factor in the Fair Tax is what amount you base the "prebate" on, which is presumably the tax you'd pay on goods and services up to the "poverty level," and I agree that you are absolutely right - what's the "poverty level?" It's not the same in Kansas as it is in California; But really, if that's the big problem with the Fair Tax, then it's light years beyond any other system proposed (or implemented). Nothing will be perfect... you can't nit pick the alternatives without judging them versus the current system and the alternatives. It's not perfect, it's just, IMO, the best I've seen so far.
Re: (Score:2)
if you spend your whole pay check, as a poor person, then you are paying a greater share of the tax.
I'm pretty sure a poor person will consume less than someone rich and therefore pay a lesser share of the tax.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the key word is not "share". The key word is not even mentioned.
Yes, the wealthier will pay a lower proportion of their income as taxes, but why is it relevant? They will still pay more taxes. The question is : what is fair? Is it fair for someone to pay more taxes simply because he's more successful? And if a person pays more taxes, will he get something in return for his greater contribution to society?
The idea that people should pay taxes according to their abilities and receive services from society
Re: (Score:2)
It's relevant because a rich person has more income in excess of basic needs than a poor person. Flat taxes fail simply because the 25% of, say, $20000 is a lot more relative to cost of living than 25% of, say, 1000000. Flat taxes are extremely regressive, which is why they always end up becoming progressive, often through the back door via credits, grants and allowances.
Re:headline is misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Targeting the wrong group... (Score:4, Informative)
I think the problem here is that people don't have a good picture of what that 1% really are - they're generally picturing the 1%'ers of the 1%'ers.
The 1% includes athletes, doctors, professors, engineers, people at the top of their field who are very much still working for it.
You knock that down to the 0.01%, and now you're looking at the CEOs with golden parachutes, the winners in the speculation fund manager market, the inherited wealth crowd, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, a federal consumption tax. Now normally a consumption tax is regressive: if you spend your whole pay check, as a poor person, then you are paying a greater share of the tax.
You mean you have a higher tax rate - not pay a greater share of the tax. One purchase of a Bentley by a rich person would cover the consumption taxes of 10 average families...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's ok. When the jackboots you cheer for come for you, there will be no one left to give a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
...and thus loses the lunatic libertarian vote.
I'm libertarian and drivers license requirements are acceptable given the current state of things and the two other candidates. An ideal libertarian world isn't going to just pop into existence.
Re: (Score:2)
There's (almost) no such thing as a "federal" driver's license, so I wouldn't see why a mentally "competent" Libertarian would have a problem with them.
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, voting for him could be the "sensible" thing to do. Especially if you're a in a state where it's already more or less a given how the election will end.
If you're in a red|blue state where the outcome is roughly 70/30 in every election, it doesn't really matter whether you cast your vote for Hillary|Trump. It doesn't even matter whether the state is for or against the candidate you're for or against. Your vote simply does not matter.
You now essentially have three choices. Either you can say "fuck this shit" and stay at home, knowing that it doesn't matter anyway. You can participate in the circus and vote for Hillary|Trump. Or you can show that yes, you would've gone there, you wanted to participate but neither of the two clowns is good enough for your vote, but there is someone who voices your concerns, and he got your vote because of this.
No, this will not change anything. At the very least not immediately. The most you could hope for is that in further elections politicians will try to gain votes and check what agendas moved people. If you can get 5% more votes by catering to the anti-surveillance crowd, they'll go for this.
But then again, since your vote is for the toilet anyway, why not be creative with it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, face it: Given the fucked up election system in the US, unless you happen to live in a "swing state", your vote is pointless anyway.
So I have to agree with you: Vote for what you like. Everything else is even more pointless.
Re: (Score:3)
I live in a swing state (Ohio) and my vote is worthless too. The only way it truly matters is if my vote gives a candidate a plurality of the vote in my state AND my state's electoral votes are required for that candidate to win.
If I go out and vote for Hillary Clinton, the only thing that changes is that Hillary Clinton has one extra vote that she wouldn't have had if I did not vote for her.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your dad was Stalin? Cool!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In this case you do get a prize for voting for Trump: the best candidate gets in power for the next 4 years, and likely even for the next 8.
The reward associated with this prize is a restoration of America to its former glory. Immigration law is finally enforced for the first time in decades, strengthening the American economy. Unjust free trade deals would likely be thrown away, again strengthening the American economy. When America's economy is strong, like it was in the 1950s and 1960s, America accomplishes great things.
The last 40 years of open borders and unjust free trade have nearly destroyed America. That's why it's time to leave those policies behind and move forward with President Trump leading the way.
Yeah, the glory days of the fifties. The world was in ruins, most governments were new and fragile, and millions of people had died. I don't think you really understand that decade - the US did well despite the policy at the time, not because of it. The US became what it was because everybody else in the world had to deal with the fallout of the war, whereas the US's physical location shielded it from that. Furthermore, it was the war itself that directly brought the US out of the depths of the Great Depre
Re: (Score:2)
Zionism doesn't sound very Libertarian...
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot are capitalist neo-liberals, not commie collectivists.
Re: (Score:2)
??? Not sure what that means. Was he some sort of sexual predator when you were a child?
Re: (Score:2)
Political systems are meant to be hard to change. That's why most constitutions have fairly stringent amending rules. Stability is very important, particularly in governments that have to oversee societies with tens or hundreds of millions of citizens. Democracy is a key objective, but it is not the only objective, and even the Founding Fathers were wise enough to distrust democracy as much as they distrusted any other aspect of governance.
Re: (Score:2)
Current system already makes poor stay poor by providing disincentive to work (you lose your benefits faster than your income increases, food stamps can not be saved up to finance a hot dog stand). Replacing it with basic income would give poor more flexibility to rise up and make many workspace regulations unnecessary as people can walk out without fear of destitution.
As for the rich, well the largest companies were going to collapse in 2008 and give smaller car makers like Tesla and others a chance to suc
Re: (Score:3)
Define rich. Is it living at a very high standard? Like having a garage full of Rolls Royces and Ferraris? Because a consumption tax will catch that. Is it having a very high income, but living in a upper middle class neighborhood and driving a Buick? Like Warren Buffett? Because he reinvests (and now gives away) the bulk of that income to support ventures that many other people derive benefit from. If it is this, then I'd rather tax him on his ranch house, Buick and occasional meals out at Burger King.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not find it moral for people to starve or go without medical care.
To think that wealth is merely a matter of effort is either naive or inhumane.
I'm a libertarian, and I agree - which is why I donate money to the Red Cross, a local children's hospital, and other institutions. While I find Ayn Rand's "objectivism" interesting, objectivism and libertarianism are not the same.
If the government stopped taking so much of my income, I'd donate more. It's absurd you think anyone would want people to starve, go without necessary healthcare, or go without an education - the only difference is the means by which we accomplish these things. Just because you