Socialism has become a policy of controlling the ends of production and dictating how the produced wealth is to be spent, through progressive taxation and by "redistribution of wealth" that takes from those that earned it and gives it to those who didn't but who are considered "poor" and needy": the ever-expanding welfare system that makes everyone equally poor.

A penalty on production is a disincentive to work. It goes against the rights to life, liberty and property and inspires collusion between those with money and those who make the rules (cronyism) to favor some over others. And as Trump has declared, it's smart to game the system.

Socialist handouts are the crumbs tossed to selected groups to keep them quiet while the large handouts go to certain industries, most vilely to weapons makers and the war machine.

So does Socialism, or progressivism, which begins by professing to care benevolently about the less fortunate and the less well off, the downtrodden, the allegedly exploited, the working class, metastasize into dictatorship, oligarchy, and enslavement of those with abilities for the sake of those with needs.

Even at its most idealistic, Socialism and all its ilk lead to some becoming "more equal" than others (read Orwell's "Animal Farm"). Its frog-warming progress to full-blown totalitarianism may take a century -- the Bolsheviks arose around 1905. Here we are in 2016, with many of our people, in a euphoria of greed and envy, and with a total lack of shame, supporting the do-goody ideas of self-declared Socialists against the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

That the American system of individual rights is still called only "an experiment" and is on the verge of being scrapped is the greatest tragedy for the human race. Few even understand anymore what those founding principles mean: protecting the individual against the mob.

I'm voting for Gary Johnson. As he put it, let's make America sane again.

I would not mind at all if my vote had this effect. Trump appears marginally less bad than Clinton.

Re: “When the LP was originally formed, its stated purpose was to use the political process to spread libertarian ideas. Winning elections was beside the point.” No it wasn’t. I’ve been an LP member since the party was formed, and the intention of most members all along was to grow the LP to the point where it could win elections. We’ve won elections at the local level for decades, along with a few state legislators. (There’s one in my home state of Nevada now.) We can spread libertarian ideas and win elections – the former makes the latter possible.

As for radical action, Gary Johnson may not be able to abolish entire agencies but he can certainly gut their power and influence with his budgetary veto pen. Free college tuition is popular with many Democrats and socialist “progressives” but not with the overall public, so I don’t think that vetoing such a plan would politically damage a Libertarian president.

There are currently 13 toss-up states with 168 electoral votes. If they split just right, Johnson could deny both candidates an electoral majority simply by winning his home state of New Mexico.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...

If Johnson won that way it would be something, but not really all that much. With no libertarians in Congress, any radical action that needed their approval (dismantling agencies, repealing drug laws, etc.) would be DOA. And if they passed something popular (free college tuition, let's say) and Johnson vetoed it, he'd be vilified.

When the LP was originally formed, its stated purpose was to use the political process to spread libertarian ideas. Winning elections was beside the point. I'd like to see them get back to their roots.

I think it is naive to open borders to all, especially with socialist programs in place to bankrupt the country when immigration exceeds job creation. Open borders with other first world countries could be done via treaty, but politicians want to retain control of their citizens, their gravy train, their sheeple.

That blows my mind about libertarians and the border...I guess they do not respect property rights nor realize we can't have open borders until the entire world Does.
Not to mention, No one realizes that more than half the world is NOT CONSCIOUSLY INTROSPECTIVE YET!

I would say that socialism has morphed from substantially "taking over the mean of production" to substantially controlling the means of production without actually having to own, supply the capital for, and absorb the risk.
the regulations they use to control business entities have little to do with efficiencies, customer service, etc. Those regulations just serve the masters (the socialist leaders).

Actually libertarians are for open borders so in that respect Johnson is as expected. I agree with you on the TPP agreement. Johnson needs to examine it closely and to express concerns about sovereignty issues. imo, Johnson has avoided confronting that issue because he did not want to chase away funding that is needed for any chance to educate more people on the basic message of responsibility, free markets, and individual liberty. Strict idealogical campaigns have been a failure in the past. Although I may not like some of the compromises Johnson has made in his campaign, I think his major policies are an order of magnitude better than anyone else, and if he takes office I think he would not approve the TPP.

But it doesn't look like Johnson will have an impact in any key states. His numbers are higher in the Western States, and Alaska.
He needs 60 electoral votes to deny Trump or Clinton the victory.

Gary blew it by not being up on the issues...Has no clue what the Trade bill is, how vital it is to protect our borders is...he is just Not the libertarian we expected.

Please define what you believe socialism to be and where any of the candidates are advocating the takeover of all the means of production or even just putting out directives on how and what production to do. All the others, than possibly Libertarians, want to regulate business for various perceived wrongs but not to take over production by their busybodyism. They just make the business of production more difficult and occasionally a little safer of less safe.

No, I'm just saying that more Gary Johnson voters would list Hillary rather than Trump as their second choice. Non-socialist Sanders supporters would fall into this category, as well as many independents who would normally vote Democrat if that party's candidate carried less baggage.

Two groups of Democrats I can think of that will break ranks with Hillary are former Sanders supporters (many voting for Johnson) and displaced manufacturing workers (many voting for Trump). Gary Johnson's greatest support comes from independents, and within this group he is pulling more votes from Hillary than from Trump.

Show the lack of faith in the two party oligarchical-mess and reduce Hillary's chances? Perfect!

Not just "something," but WONDERFUL.

This year more than any previous election year, Instant Runoff Voting or some other weighted or ranked voting system becomes demonstrably necessary.
For example, the rational, honest, and moral voter could cast his #1 vote for Johnson, maybe #2 for Jill Stein, #3 for ... someone else, perhaps Trump or Clinton or any other candidate.
Let's say lots of people pick 1-Johnson and 2-Trump out of fear of Clinton.
In the meantime, they've shown the old-party oligarchs they're sick and tired of the old ways.
Now, though, people are almost forced -- by dishonest "news" reporting and poor schooling -- into picking an alleged lesser evil.

mminick: I think you have forgotten Teddy Roosevelt. His third party adventure as a Progressive was clearly responsible for the election of Wilson. And in 1860 a raft of third parties caused Lincoln to win.

This trend was obvious several months ago. If Trump's intelligence over road his narcissism he would have refused to participate in the debates unless Johnson and Stein were on the stage. This would have been a popular position and would have hurt Hillary on a net vote basis. A lost opportunity.

So...are you saying that a vote for Johnson or Stien is a vote for Trump? Perhaps true, but it could be pretty funny in a SNL sort of way.

How many Democrats do you expect to break ranks with her? They're all just as bad as she is.

Trump seems to now need all the help he can get.

I never liked the socialist part of Sanders, but I used to think he was kind of a good ol grandfather type. That was until I heard him go off on Trump eith a very evil rant. Way out of proportion to whatever Trump had done. Just we have to STOP Trump... Thats when the true evil of his socialism came out. Now I think sanders is a piece of sh&*, despite his anti establishment leanings.

Some non-socialist Bernie Sanders supporters are planning to vote for Gary Johnson also.

If the election goes to the House, each state gets one vote, which would favor Republicans on a straight party-line vote. If the Democrats all vote for Hillary, they’re toast. Anti-Trump Republican congressmen would not be willing to join them. But with Hillary no longer a viable candidate, a coalition of anti-Trump Republicans and anyone-but-Trump Democrats might be willing to team up and hand the Presidency to Gary Johnson. Wouldn’t that be something!