Instigator
Points: 14

Ron Paul is More Libertarian than Gary Johnson

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
ShabShoral
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Points: 8
Description
Split bop!
Round 1
Published:
PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS

It is essential that we debaters, as well as you voters, limit our scopes to the resolution and the resolution alone. Some questions -- while important in their own rights -- are simply not relevant to this debate. Therefore, before discussing the ideological purity of either Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I must make clear that:

1. We ought to define Libertarianism in the most consistent and charitable way possible (and my opponent must admit this, since, if the very concept of Libertarianism is self-contradictory, he has no way to say what an actual Libertarian looks like, and, thus, cannot make any claims which fulfill his BoP);

2. This "charitable definition", being at least theoretically coherent, informs the standard we ought to judge individuals by here;

3. Our standard is one of ideological purity: the degree to which individuals hold to Libertarianism;

4. Finally, the correctness or value of Libertarianism (whether one should adhere to Libertarianism), being separate to the issue of how much one does adhere to it, is totally irrelevant.

--

This debate, due to being about privately-held beliefs which are not fully transparent, requires us to agree on a way to determine whether a person believes or does not believe in something. I propose a common-sense solution: we rely on consistency of speech and consistency of action across time. Using this, the "most Libertarian" person would be the person who has had the track record most implying of an internal fidelity to Libertarianism -- the person who offers the most concrete indicators of their Libertarianism.

--

In all ideological systems, certain things have lexical priority over others. Without providing an exhaustive outline of Libertarian ideology, I propose that we consider the core tenet of Libertarianism, which is treated as inviolable, such that we have a litmus test at hand: if this principle is betrayed, one is a worse Libertarian than if it were not betrayed. Murray Rothbard, a towering figure in Libertarian theory, tells us the key to Libertarianism:

"The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else.” (For A New Liberty)

Our debate, then, should be over this: “Which of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson respects this axiom more?”

--
POSITIVE ARGUMENTS:


Over his decades-long career in politics, Paul has virtually always voted on principle, not for ecumenical aspirations. The New York Times, in a report about Paul’s 1988 electoral bid, says:
“If elected, he says, he would abolish public schools, welfare, Social Security and farm subsidies. All drug laws should be repealed, Dr. Paul maintains, a position that drew hisses at the university.” [https://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/17/us/now-for-a-real-underdog-ron-paul-libertarian-for-president.html]

It is no coincidence that these stances are so extreme. This extremity is direct proof of an uncompromising attitude toward Freedom.

Johnson, on the other hand, freely admits that he is happy giving up Libertarian ideas to get elected. Ron Paul, who has consistently displayed disgust towards this weak-willed pragmatism,voiced more support for Jill Stein, a Green Party Progressive, precisely because she was not running on a watered-down bastardisation of an ideology. WaPo writes: “Johnson has run as a cross-ideological candidate, attempting to build "a six-lane highway between the two parties." When asked about the details of the Libertarian Party platform, he has made clear that he does not stand by all of it.
[...]
Paul hinted at his problem with that in the MSNBC interview. "He doesn't come across with a crisp Libertarian message," said Paul of Johnson. ‘I'm voting for the nonaggression principle.’
That was a reference to a concept in libertarian thinking, and Libertarian Party politics, in which any initiation of force — to use police power to enforce environmental regulation, for example — is immoral. Johnson rejected it, while more radical Libertarians said it was fundamental to what the party stood for.” [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/03/ron-paul-criticizes-gary-johnson-praises-jill-stein/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bf8600a54b03]
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Gary Johnson’s 2016 VP pick, Bill Weld, supported a candidate unarguably antithetical to Libertarianism, saying, “Well, I'm here vouching for Mrs. Clinton, and I think it's high time somebody did.” [http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/01/bill-weld-on-rachel-maddow-im-here-vouch]
I will wait for my opponent to respond to offer more concrete examples, since, I believe, this all alone is daming.
 
Remember always the words of Barry Goldwater: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”
 
 

Published:
Pro = Proposition = ShabShoral           Con = Contender = RationalMadman
S&G Vote: I am using British English outside of quotes (apart from the word 'illest' LOL!).
Source Referencing Inside of Quotes: Even if the website itself lists the numbers as 100 or 1, I will alter the numbers between the brackets in quotes to match the number in my list at the bottom of this Round.

I agreed to this debate due to knowing my opponent would be noble enough to not do some ridiculous thing like pick some other person named Ron Paul or Gary Johnson and also wouldn't troll with the definition of Libertarianism so on and so forth and I will indeed return the noble act because this is about trust and reputation and I want to go down in online debating history as the illest in the scene who didn't need to troll to be a threat but was just that good at genuine debating that he was one.

Let's be quite exact here, the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson referred to in the resolution are the following men (they both identify as male to Pro's and my knowledge):

Ronald Ernest Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American author, physician, and retired politician who served as the U.S. Representative for Texas's 22nd congressional district from 1976 to 1977 and again from 1979 to 1985, and for Texas's 14th congressional district from 1997 to 2013. On three occasions, he sought the presidency of the United States: as the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988 and as a candidate in the Republican primaries of 2008 and 2012. Paul is a critic of the federal government's fiscal policies, especially the existence of the Federal Reserve and the tax policy, as well as the military–industrial complex, and the War on Drugs. He has also been a vocal critic of mass surveillance policies such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the NSA surveillance programs. He was the first chairman of the conservative PAC Citizens for a Sound Economy[1] and has been characterized as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement.[2][3]
- [4]

Gary Earl Johnson (born January 1, 1953) is an American businessman, author and politician who served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003 as a member of the Republican Party. He was the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 and 2016 elections.[5]
- [6]

With that out of the way (the 'who') let's go onto the specifics of this debate and the dynamics (the 'what' and 'how').

In a debate like this it's extremely important to find middle ground with your opponent (I am speaking to fellow debaters who go wrong here and try to combat the opponent on fundamentals) so what I'm going to do is guide both my opponent and the audience/voters to the definition of Libertarianism that I hold true and also to thoroughly believe in the way I determine whom of the two of RP and GJ is more so.

So, Pro says:
The Libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress[sic] against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else
- Pro who accredits For A New Liberty

This is not far from the truth at all, the concept of the right-wing form of liberty-seeking (which is what Libertarianism in this debate really means, we both agreed on that before making this debate) is quite a lot about doing as little as possible to get in the way of others so as to enable everyone to be as free as is feasible. Where Con disagrees with Pro is that it stops there and that this is even half way through the true definition of the deep political philosophy of Liberalism which is known as Libertarianism since it's the right-wing form of seeking it.

 As I go into Libertarianism I am going to ignore the debate just for a little bit but rest assured the way I describe it already paints Ron Paul's version of it in a worse light than Johnson's when it comes to being 'more of it' in an overall sense and after I go into depth about it and prove that the very mechanics of Libertarianism are much more Johnson's brand of it, we will then look into what the two (RP and GJ) have actually done in their careers and the percentage of it that has snowed a snowball towards Libertarianism as a net-leaning and the opposite which will end up meaning even if someone did more for the movement in the past they could have ended up having done so much against it that they undid how much 'more' of a Libertarian they were over time. The debate is who is more Libertarian at present with their net-result leaning and ethos as a politician as opposed to who was more at some point in the past.

So let's look into the details of what Libertarianism (the right-wing way to achieve liberty for all) really is and what it entails:

First I am going to go for a paragraph that I feel fully outlines Libertarianism then going to be using an extremely well written Chapter 1 of a book by an expert on the topic and splitting it up and at each stage going into why RP < GJ as a Libertarian overall.
Libertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be understood as a form of liberalism, the political philosophy associated with the English philosophers John Locke and John Stuart Mill, the Scottish economist Adam Smith, and the American statesman Thomas Jefferson. Liberalism seeks to define and justify the legitimate powers of government in terms of certain natural or God-given individual rights. These rights include the rights to life, liberty, private property, freedom of speech and association, freedom of worship, government by consent, equality under the law, and moral autonomy (the ability to pursue one’s own conception of happiness, or the “good life”). The purpose of government, according to liberals, is to protect these and other individual rights, and in general liberals have contended that government power should be limited to that which is necessary to accomplish this task. Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty. They contend that the scope and powers of government should be constrained so as to allow each individual as much freedom of action as is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else. Thus, they believe that individuals should be free to behave and to dispose of their property as they see fit, provided that their actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others.
- [7]

My Source 8 is a source that itself sources Chapter 1 of the expert's book just to be clear about why I'm not sourcing the book itself. It is actually the same author as my source 7 relies on.
Individualism
Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility. The progressive extension of dignity to more people — to women, to people of different religions and different races — is one of the great libertarian triumphs of the Western world.

Individual Rights
Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property. These rights are not granted by government or by society; they are inherent in the nature of human beings. It is intuitively right that individuals enjoy the security of such rights; the burden of explanation should lie with those who would take rights away.
- [8]
When it comes to right-wing Libertarianism it is clear that they don't like the government stepping in to stop discrimination or abuse to individuals as they think the community itself or some other magical fairy is supposed to protect the minorities from abuse that restricts their liberty as an individual. That's fine, I get that it's a right-wing thing to dislike government intervention but Ron Paul takes it a step further by actively, time and time again, showing blatant sympathy to bullies and ignorance to the suffering of the bullied. I shall showcase a few examples from extremely reliable sources below. Of course he will justify it with pretty words and say 'I only want to stop government intervention' but if you truly want to stop government intervention and be considered a Libertarian you need to have a privately organised way to ensure the liberty of the people which Ron Paul never ever has even hinted at wanting to fund or endorse. Talk is cheap, consistent stances on matters like the following are not:

San Pedro, California - On January 12, a great blow was struck against freedom, if you subscribe to the philosophy of Ron Paul. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission voted 4-0 to uphold its earlier finding that a Cincinnati landlord, Jamie Hein, had discriminated against a ten-year-old biracial girl by posting a "White Only" sign in June 2011, aimed at keeping her out of a swimming pool. According to Paul's worldview, this was a grave and terrible blow to the white landlord's liberty.

The girl's white father, however, sees things a bit differently.

"My initial reaction to seeing the sign was of shock, disgust and outrage," the girl's father, Michael Gunn, said in brief comments the day the final decision was announced. The family quickly moved away, in order to protect their daughter from exposure to such humiliating bigotry - but they also filed the lawsuit.

According to Ron Paul's view of "liberty", they were right to move, but wrong to sue. Both Ron Paul and his son, Rand, oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because it outlaws private acts of discrimination. This is an "infringement of liberty", they argue. And they're right: just like laws against murder, it infringes the liberty of bullies. And that's precisely what justice is: the triumph of right over might.

The same logic also applies to the Civil War. It resulted in the abolition of slavery - infringing the liberty of hundreds of thousands of slaveholders. And Ron Paul thinks that was wrong, too.
- [9]

Let's just be clear here he said the family was right to move and thus cower to the bullies who were discriminating against their right to access the swimming pool as much as a human being of any other racial make-up and ethnicity and even worse he then says they were wrong to sue. Why exactly is it coherent that you are free to discriminate but not free to fight back with privately hired lawyers and your privately arranged Media coverage? 

Totally aside from that is his blatant disregard for the poor (which is common amongst Libertarians but is not actually quintessentially Libertarian at all). While speaking often against the elite and their neglect of the poor and abuse of the poor, Paul has yet to ever make a single move to help them. Why does this matter? Let's just establish what exactly happens when we neglect the poor and leave them to be "free to get so poor that their freedom is lost." (I am quoting my inner thoughts there).

The idea of private property automatically violates the non-aggression principle. If libertarians start advocating for a commons, where the land belonged to everyone and no one, I might take them a little more seriously. In fact, the modern concept of private property was created when nobles started fencing off the commons and used the state or another form of violence to enforce their claims to the property. Should libertarians abolish the state as well as people’s current rights to ownership in favor of everyone beginning at an equal starting position in life, they violate the non-aggression principle. Should they abolish just the state, the poor will remain poor, and the rich will have no barriers to engaging in any kind of social or economic scheme. Since libertarians proselytize the property owner’s absolute control over his private property, it creates a dilemma where a form of feudalism takes shape and a new rentier class emerges.

A caller on the Sam Seder show elucidated this libertarian dilemma with childlike simplicity. He explained that the queen of England, under libertarian protections, could take her property, Great Britain and the other colonies, and do what she likes. She could, gasp, create a government to manage the property and, double gasp, raise money from taxes. Libertarians try to connect two disparate ideas: libertarian values and a libertarian state. But libertarian values can never ever lead to a libertarian state. It is highly improbable if not impossible for that ever to happen, especially since for the longest time Libertarianism by definition stood for a type of anarchy. Once a state is built on libertarian values, it ceases to be libertarian.
- [10]

I don't need to prove that Ron Paul has called to cut every single poor-protecting policy in the book, Pro already did that for me pointing out how rigid the mentality of Ron Paul is on matters and how he ignores anti-Libertarian, anti-Individualistic consequences of policies on the regular just to appear more pure whereas Johnson (which am now going to prove) at times will take a stance that one the surface is less Libertarian than Paul's stance but in what it actually achieves is so purely Libertarian that it was blatantly the minimum level of wavering required to achieve the goal of sustainable Libertarianism that will last for centuries that Johnson took as opposed to the 'Libertarian now, Oligarch of the rich later' approach of Paul.

In fact... No! Let's first background check this fabulous poster boy for Libertarianism the great Ron Paul and see his track record and what happens when we ignore his fancy speeches and voting patterns and see what he's physically done in the name of Libertarianism on a large scale as well as where he comes from and has gone away from to get to where he is now.

So, just before I explain how Johnson is a legit Libertarian who only ever wavers in the slightest way to achieve much longer-lasting, secure Libertarianism that is both sustainable and possible (that's right, his right- Libertarianism doesn't defeat itself or refute its values even though I do disagree with them as I'm a left-wing Social Democrat) let me first display the fabulous history of Ron Paul:

Paul grew up on his family’s dairy farm just outside Pittsburgh. He earned a bachelor’s degree in biology from Gettysburg College in 1957 and a medical degree from Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina, in 1961. He later served as a flight surgeon for the U.S. Air Force (1963–65) and the Air National Guard (1965–68). In 1968 Paul moved to Brazoria county, Texas, where he established a successful practice in obstetrics and gynecology.
-[11]

Alright, so while not at all a bad record to have and in many ways noble, notice no business accumen displayed or garnered and if anything quite an anti-Libertarian mentality fostered from five years in the Military. This may explain why he's become much more of a revered figure among the Tea Party Patriots than Libertarians but I am not going to go into that for this round.

So, we'd expect him to be a shining light for Libertarians right? After he finishes his military duties and is done with his medical career he decides to go into politics, helps bring Libertarianism to politics through a party that doesn't bastardise itself by hiding behind the name Republican and getting support from many non-Libertarian right-wingers and then he can be the angel of the Libertarian Party we all know and love... Oh, hold up... Oh no that's Gary Johnson but we'll get to him in a minute. So, apparently Ron Paul isn't the poster boy for Libertarianism we thought him to be...

RON PAUL, Republican of Texas, has retired from the House, after winning more than two million presidential primary votes in 2012. He took the party’s libertarian wing from ignorable fringe to significant faction. His son, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, is angling to lead that faction, very possibly as a presidential candidate himself.

The libertarian wing’s dissatisfaction with Mitt Romney led the Libertarian Party to earn 1.2 million votes in the presidential election for its candidate, the former New Mexico governor (and former Republican) Gary Johnson. That was its largest vote total ever. In at least seven national House and Senate races a Libertarian beat the spread between a winning Democrat and a losing Republican. From the Republican point of view, losing the libertarians can mean losing elections.

“There’s a whole swath of people not getting adequate attention from Republicans or Democrats,” Senator Paul told me recently. These are independent voters who want to seriously cut government spending the way the Tea Party faction does but who also want a “foreign policy more of defense and less offene,” as Senator Paul put it, and a “more socially tolerant attitude.”
- [12]

Well, well, well in 2012 we see that over time Paul has been the one to put 'means to get in power' above raw values wheres Johnson left the powerful Republican Party to not just join but put blood, sweat and tears into leading the Libertarian Party to get its largest vote ever. Not only that but "in at least seven national House and Senate races a Libertarian beat the spread between a winning Democrat and a losing Republican." - [12] wow, just wow.

So, let's just put this into perspective, the guy who Pro says never wavers from Libertarianism betrayed his party for Republicans thinking that Libertarians had no chance, meanwhile Gary Johnson gets so sick of the pandering to the non-Libertarian colleagues and voters when being a member of the Republican party that he pulls away from Republicans and works his way up the food chain in the party that Paul non-verbally deemed hopeless and ends up breaking records with how big a step he makes with the party into the House of Congress and American Politics in general.

Before I start talking about the path Johnson took and how great he's been for the Libertarian movement (phenomenal, really I'd say one of the top figures both in positivity for the movement and raw rationality in how to always end up achieving it no matter what chaotic alterations happen in the ecosystem of politics and economics of America and the rest of the world) I first want to say that there's more the movement from source 8 that I want to quote just so it becomes clearer where Johnson supports Libertarianism in ways Paul never has and judging by his stubbornness in mentality likely never will.

The Rule of Law
Libertarianism is not Libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that “people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything.” Rather, Libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.
- [8]

This is the first way Johnson surpasses Paul as a true Libertarian. Paul is either confusing Libertarianism for anarcho-capitalism or is simply naive in thinking you can take away the government and have people protected or safe from the removal of their freedoms by people who are just smarter, stronger or luckier than them. If you stand by and allow the aggressive taking of freedoms of people purely because the perpetrator doesn't have an official badge or job title saying 'Government Official' you're not more of a Libertarian than the one who sticks up for the vulnerable, you're a traitor to the non-aggression principle because by not stopping the said aggression you're enabling the perpetrator to remove consent, liberty, peace and a lot of other basic rights in the Libertarian philosophy from the person you're sitting back and allowing to be violated in ways that should be utterly unacceptable to you as a Libertarian. The only justification to sit back and allow it is if you are willing to compromise your Libertarianism for non-Libertarian purposes and by God does Paul preach this mentality regarding the Hussein regime and other regimes (and even drug cartels which infringe on the freedom of those within them often blackmailing to murder their whole family if they don't obey them which violated the right to life which is also fundamental to Libertarian philosophy).

I am actually quite curious about why Paul is so fervent about allowing Iran to have nuclear warheads and turning a blind eye to it.

Johnson understand that Libertarianism is not anarchy and is not about letting the strong prey on the weak,  he applies this to International Policy too while still maintaining a minimalist perspective on it:
DEFENSE
The Libertarian nominee says the U.S. armed forces have too large a global footprint and that, as president, he would remove about half of the U.S. military bases around the world. Moreover, his campaign website says that U.S. "meddling in the affairs of other nations has made us less safe." Recent presidents from both parties have misused U.S. military power to "pursue undemocratic regime changes, embark on impossible nation-building exercises, and to establish the United States as the policeman of the world," it says.

Johnson says that as president he would only send military forces into battle with a formal authorization from Congress. He supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, but said the Bush administration should have withdrawn troops in 2002, after "we defeated al-Qaeda." He opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 as well as the military intervention in Libya in 2011.

IRAN
The former governor says he would abide by the multinational agreement to restrict Iran's nuclear program but has serious concerns about Tehran's funding of militant groups. "If the agreement delays the development of nuclear weapons and grants us greater ability to know what the Iranians are doing, the net benefits may outweigh the costs and flaws," his campaign said in September 2016.

ISLAMIC STATE
Congress should pass a bill specifically authorizing the U.S. military offensive against the self-proclaimed Islamic State, says Johnson. (As of October 2016, President Obama has requested but not received this authorization.) Meanwhile, the United States should be working with the Russian government, which backs the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, to bring the conflict to a close, he says. "The only way to shift that dynamic and bring an end to the civil war and the humanitarian consequences is to engage Russia in a credible peace process," Johnson's campaign said in September 2016. "It is not a matter of whether we want to work with Russia; it is that there is no alternative that will work," it said.

NATIONAL SECURITY
Many of the federal government's electronic surveillance activities violate the civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, says Johnson. If elected president, he said he wants "to get the government out of your life. Out of your cell phone. Out of your bedroom," according to his campaign website.

Johnson has also been critical of U.S. targeted killings, telling reporters in July 2016 he might as president end the practice of using drones to kill suspected terrorists. "If we're attacked, we're going to attack back, but these drone strikes do have the unintended consequences of killing innocent people," he told CNN.

NORTH KOREA
North Korea's development of nuclear weapons is "the biggest threat in the world right now," said Johnson in August 2016. The United States should be working with China toward ridding the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons, after which U.S. troops may be able to withdraw from South Korea, he says.

RUSSIA
Johnson says he would likely reevaluate U.S. security commitments to allies under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. "Do we really want to go to war with Russia over the Baltic states?" he said in August 2016. "Russia doesn't have to be our ally, but they don't necessarily need to be a military threat to the U.S. either," he said.
- [13]

There is something called being reasonable and minimalist and something called being so ignorant to the oppression of others that you don't realise by allowing others to amass military and economic strength as well as political influence they can end up dominating your own nation and ruining the liberty of the people inside it against your will (yes Ron Paul, they will make USA their colony if they are not stopped). So, even if you are a selfish and uncaring type of Libertarian purist, there's extreme rationality in Johnson's form of it and it is the single best way to be a Libertarian if you want Libertarianism to ever be a long-lasting threat to the other political regimes of this world that not only works but works well.

I would like to finish with the words of the great Johnson himself. I will happily expand on him in Round 2 but I feel that this is the best way to end my introductory, pure-constructive round as Paul has not only never made a speech with this many facts instead of rhetoric but inspired in the name of Libertarianism in such an official way.

These are the words of Gary Johnson via CNN:
I had been elected governor when everyone said I didn't have a chance. A businessman who had never sought or held elected office, running as a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. My prospects for success were dismissed by pretty much everyone.
But I worked hard, and told New Mexicans what I would do if elected: Reduce the size of the government, cut taxes and apply businesslike common sense to the job of governing. My state elected me, I did what I said I would do, and they re-elected me by an even bigger margin. After that second term, I walked away to resume what was -- and is -- a pretty good life.

I have had the good fortune to be able to climb the highest mountain on each of the seven continents. I have enjoyed the freedom I had gained from building a successful business from scratch, making some money and creating the lifestyle I wanted.

As for being governor, I did what I said I would do. I told people the truth, and I tried to run the state the same way I ran my business, and my life: Don't promise what you can't deliver. Deliver what you can on time and under budget. And most of all, don't waste anyone's time or money. I vetoed bills we didn't need nor couldn't afford -- 750 of them. To this day, some call me "Governor Veto."

And the result?

I cut the growth of government in half, and reduced the number of state employees by more than 1,000, without any mass firings or layoffs. We cut taxes. We shifted Medicaid to a managed care system and cut costs. I scrutinized regulations to be sure they were truly needed and not unnecessarily burdensome for individuals and businesses.

I enjoyed being governor. I didn't enjoy the politics, but it was satisfying to make a difference in people's lives, force debates on issues that needed to be discussed, and put the principles of smaller government and greater freedom into practice.

After my service as governor was finished, I largely stayed away from politics. I went home, pursued my passions for skiing and cycling, climbed Mount Everest, built my dream house and enjoyed my freedom.
But there was a big problem. I found I could not sit on the couch and watch as the politicians in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike, ran up trillions in debt, sent our young men and women into harm's way to fight ill-advised wars, and turned our government from a protector of freedom into a threat that is intruding into virtually every aspect of our personal and financial lives.

I couldn't stand by and do nothing. I had my freedom, and I had my comfortable life, but I couldn't accept the fact that the politicians were making it increasingly difficult for my kids and millions of others to achieve their dreams as I had achieved mine.

So, in 2012, I ran for president. But it became clear rather quickly that the system wasn't ready for my kind of classical liberalism. I tried to run as a Republican, but didn't fit into the mold demanded by the Republican primary gauntlet. I couldn't evangelize about family values that may be wonderful personal values, but that are frankly none of the government's business. I couldn't talk about increasing defense spending at a time when we are broke. And I had to tell the truth about entitlements that must be reformed if we are ever to balance the federal budget.

So I went home to the Libertarian Party. Libertarians, broadly speaking, are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Running as the candidate who could unapologetically advocate those principles was, well, liberating. I didn't win, but I garnered more votes than any Libertarian candidate in history.

Along the way, I learned a lot about the American people. Americans are fed up with politicians who lie, who don't really want to change anything, and for whom being elected and re-elected are ends in themselves.

Millennials -- who will soon be a full one-third of American adults -- may be especially ready to become engaged in politics with a candidate who wants to give them a government that will leave them alone and get its finances in order so that they don't inherit an economic collapse.
But all Americans who are rightfully and deeply concerned that a feckless foreign policy is allowing the likes of ISIS to not only threaten our safety, but humiliate us, may be ready for a candidate who will pursue reality-based foreign and military policies that actually fulfill government's most basic responsibility to keep us -- and our freedoms -- safe.

So ... for those who are asking "Why am I running for president in 2016?" the answer is simple. I believe America might be ready for something -- and somebody -- different.
- [14]

Sources

DISCLAIMER: I am either using the technology available at http://www.citethisforme.com/uk/referencing-generator/harvard to generate the formatting of this list or I am copying and editing from the citations of the sites I source from (if they have their own reference). I am not actually doing this out of laziness but because I cannot think how to invent a better referencing system myself.

[1] "Citizens for a Sound Economy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 14, 2014. [Retrieved June 25, 2013.]

[2] Smith, James F. (December 16, 2007). "Ron Paul's tea party for dollars". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on September 22, 2012. [Retrieved September 22, 2012.]

[3] Green, Joshua (August 5, 2011). "The Tea Party's Brain". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on September 22, 2012. [Retrieved September 22, 2012.]

[4] En.wikipedia.org. (n.d.). Ron Paul. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul [Accessed 24 Aug. 2018].

[6] En.wikipedia.org. (n.d.). Gary Johnson. [online] Available at:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson [Accessed 24 Aug. 2018].

[7] Boaz, D. (2004). Libertarianism | Definition, Doctrines, History, & Facts. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/libertarianism-politics [Accessed 24 Aug. 2018].

[8] Boaz, D. (1999). Key Concepts of Libertarianism. [online] Cato Institute. Available at: https://www.cato.org/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism [Accessed 24 Aug. 2018].

[9] Rosenberg, P. (2012). Ron Paul and the liberty of bullies. [online] Aljazeera.com. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201211810446786665.html [Accessed 24 Aug. 2018].

[10] Compton, J. (2016). Why Right-Wing Libertarians Are Bad for Politics – Itinerant Thoughts – Medium. [online] Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/itinerant-thoughts/why-right-wing-libertarians-are-bad-for-politics-b397def7f805 [Accessed 24 Aug. 2018].

[11] Encyclopedia Britannica. (2018). Ron Paul | American politician. [online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ron-Paul [Accessed 24 Aug. 2018].

[12] Doherty, B. (2013). Opinion | After Ron Paul, Then What for Libertarians?. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/opinion/sunday/after-ron-paul-then-what-for-libertarians.html [Accessed 24 Aug. 2018].

[13] Cfr.org. (2018). Gary Johnson | On The Issues. [online] Available at: https://www.cfr.org/interactives/campaign2016/gary-johnson [Accessed 24 Aug. 2018].

[14] Johnson, G. (2016). Why I'm running for president. [online] CNN. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/09/opinions/why-running-for-president-johnson/ [Accessed 24 Aug. 2018].
Round 2
Published:
My opponent states that the debate is about who is more Libertarian in the present, which is acceptable, but only if it’s kept in mind that we must always establish such a thing by looking to the past. The present moment offers nothing to us; it must be constructed by History. As I’ve stated, consistency of past action is one of the main indicators of present character. This should not be lost on anyone: Even if Ron Paul has not done anything important recently, his past impacts may still show his inner beliefs.

I am willing to accept the exposition about the definition of Libertarianism he offers.


Individual Rights
“To me the most important thing in our efforts is to understand how important individual liberty is. So many people come up and we’ll get questions and quite possibly even on Tuesday we’ll get questions that’ll say, “Well, what do you think about this group’s rights, minority rights, gay rights, gay marriage, all these things?” And as far as I’m concerned and as far as all of us should be concerned is we don’t have to worry about that. What we should worry about is individual rights. Everybody has a right to their life and a right to their liberty and we should recognize that the purpose of government not only is to protect liberty but it ought to really emphasize the protection of your individual privacy. Unfortunately, today government is designed to invade your privacy and protect the secrecy of government and we need to turn that around.” [https://fff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ron-Paul-2007-Transcript.pdf]

It must be remembered that Libertarianism is a political ideology. It is concerned with the correct form of Governance, not with morality more generally. Thus, even if Ron Paul privately holds disgusting moral beliefs, he may still be a perfect Libertarian.
Ron Paul did not say that it was right for the family to be discriminated against. His stance was that they, users of private property, had to obey the terms of the property owner. This is an entirely necessary element of Libertarianism - if an owner of property cannot exercise full control over it, setting rules as to how it may be used by others, they are no owner at all; they are subjugated by the State. And this is a far more egregious type of immorality, for it strips a basic right - the right to autonomy, which means the right to operate within space and utilise that space, barring it already being owned - from all individuals.

Racial discrimination is surely despicable. But not all despicable acts should be punished by the State, and that is exactly what the aim of a prosecutor would be. No right is being violated by the property owner, so no right of the property owner should be violated by the State.  
My opponent has not shown how a “feudalistic scheme” violates the Non-Aggression Principle. He must do so for this point to matter. The simple fact is that property is distributed in such and such a way now, and there are rightful property owners. This is the only starting point we can hope for, unless we try to right past wrongs (this is, however, a topic for another time). From here, what occurs via non-aggressive manoeuvering will always be outside the proper limits of the State.

“The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.” [https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/04/ron-paul/the-answer-to-racism/]

So long as Gary Johnson does not recognise Autonomy over all else, he will be incomplete.
“Giving Up Power

Efficacy does not conflict with idealism. Compromise does. Countering the claims that, because Gary Johnson abandoned the Republicans for the Libertarian Party, he has proven his Libertarian Convictions is simply done by pointing out that, in 1988, Ron Paul, then a Republican congressman, left the Party to run for President on the Libertarian ticket. He, of course, got 0.5% of the popular vote (comparable to Johnson’s 2012 tally of 0.99%). All this in a time where the Libertarian party was less relevant than today - pre-Tea Party, pre-Paul 2008, and so on.

That Paul decided to return to the Republican party is no sign of weakness; whilst elected, he voted consistently according to Libertarian principles. All this while inspiring the growth of the movement. Note how Ron Paul - the very same Ron Paul, in attitude and philosophy, who ran as a Libertarian - gathered an incredible amount of support in the 2008 election, campaigning for the Republican nomination. A clear outsider, someone who was a distinctly different type of Republican, Paul was able to convert masses to Libertarian positions *as a clear underdog*.

Compare this to Gary Johnson, who, while having joined a relatively powerless party, used the opportunity to water the party down. Note that being a part of the Libertarian Party does not make one a Libertarian as much as being a part of the GOP makes one a Conservative. There will always be hijackers and milquetoast sellout bores; Ron Paul was never one.

The Rule of Law
My opponent chooses to argue that Libertarians ought to concern themselves with correcting rights-violations full-stop. While this is noble, he misses that a core principle of Libertarianism is that a State must derive its legitimacy from the people of its land and must be the servant of the citizens. This means, quite simply, that a particular State must prioritise the interests of its own citizens above those of other countries. This does not mean that the State ought to exploit or war against others for its own gain; indeed, it is the opposite. Because Libertarians do recognise that all of Humanity are endowed with inviolable rights, the State must not aggress against anyone. However, this is not the same as saying that the State must stop others from aggressing. It is clear that doing so would not be improper per se, but, when doing so, unobligated, requires breaking the obligations of the State to its own citizens, it cannot be justified.

In response to intervention in Sudan: “[I]t should be done voluntarily. I have no right – no moral right or constitutional right – to come with a gun and tax the people and say: "I will take money because I want to do good" … there's warring factions going on there, it's a civil war... You could've argued that in Somalia as well … And the American people are generous – there's no reason why we can't help feed the world, and we do. But there's no justification to use violence against our people to extract money to do good overseas.” [http://info.nhpr.org/node/13016]

Paul would admit that, in cases of self-defense, military force is necessary. The world does not have many such cases; America is not as threatened as some would like to think. “I am convinced that there are more threats to American liberty within the 10 mile radius of my office on Capitol Hill than there are on the rest of the globe.” [https://original.antiwar.com/paul/2009/02/17/the-draft-just-say-no/]

Gary Johnson refuses to base his foreign policy in the principles of correct governance. No matter how often they align, this keeps him from being truly Libertarian.

Have We Lost Our Minds?

In the style of my opponent, I leave you with a breathtaking speech delivered by Ron Paul:


“Could it all be a bad dream or a nightmare? Is it my imagination or have we lost our minds? It's surreal, it's just not believable. A grand absurdity, a great deception, a delusion of momentous proportions based on preposterous notions and on ideas whose time should never have come. Simplicity, grossly distorted and complicated. Insanity, passed off as logic. Grandiose schemes built on falsehoods with the morality of Ponzi and Madoff. Evil described as virtue. Ignorance pawned off as wisdom. Destruction and impoverishment in the name of humanitarianism. Violence, the tool of change. Preventive wars used as a road to peace. Tolerance delivered by government guns. Reactionary views in the guise of progress. An empire replacing the republic. Slavery sold as liberty. Excellence and virtue traded for mediocrity. Socialism to save capitalism. A government out of control, unrestrained by the constitution, the rule of law or morality. Bickering over petty politics as we descend into chaos. The philosophy that destroys us is not even defined.

We have broken from reality a psychotic nation. Ignorance with a pretense of knowledge replacing wisdom. Money does not grow on trees, nor does prosperity come from a government printing press or escalating deficits. We are now in the midst of unlimited spending of the people's money. Exorbitant taxation, deficits of trillions of dollars spent on a failed welfare-warfare system. An epidemic of cronyism. Unlimited supplies of paper money equated with wealth. A central bank that deliberately destroys the value of the currency in secrecy, without restraint, without nary a whimper, yet cheered on by the pseudo-capitalists of Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, and Detroit.
We police our world empire with troops on 700 bases and in 130 countries around the world. A dangerous war now spreads throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. Thousands of innocent people being killed as we become known as the torturers of the 21st century. We assume that by keeping the already known torture pictures from the public's eye, we will be remembered only as a generous and good people. If our enemies want to attack us only because we are free and rich, proof of torture would be irrelevant. The sad part of all this is that we have forgotten what made America great, good and prosperous. We need to quickly refresh our memories and once again reinvigorate our love, understanding, and confidence in liberty. The status quo cannot be maintained considering the current conditions. Violence and lost liberty will result without some revolutionary thinking. We must escape from the madness of crowds now gathering.
The good news is that reversal is achievable through peaceful and intellectual means, and fortunately the number of those who care are growing exponentially. Of course it could all be a bad dream, a nightmare, and that I'm seriously mistaken, overreacting, and that my worries are unfounded. I hope so. But just in case, we ought to prepare ourselves for revolutionary changes in the not-too-distant future.

I yield back the balance of my time.” [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5tbDeOuFcE]


Published:
Source [5] from Round 1 was Pratt, Timothy (May 5, 2012). "Libertarians nominate ex-Governor Gary Johnson for president". Reuters. Retrieved May 6, 2012.

Have you ever heard the phrase 'put your money where your mouth is'? Well that's what this debate is going to come down to.

At least, that's what it will come down to for Con. As for Pro, I'm unsure what it will come down to other than words that advocate worldwide anarchy and if not anarchy then amoral Libertinism, Ron Paul I am sure isn't intentionally misleading people on what he thinks Libertarianism is.

A lot of the issue with Paul is that you can't spot how he lacks Libertarianism until you look at what he doesn't do or say.

I am going to go into depth in this Round highlighting how, contrary to the picture my opponent is painting, that there's somehow a default state of 'Ron Paul is more Libertarian than Gary Johnson' and it's me who has to make an uphill battle against it.  My opponent barely even provides any new evidence in Round 2 short of speeches and already stated voting patterns of Paul.

Compromise does not fly in the face of Idealism. If you refuse to compromise, you guarantee your ideals never ever are going to work but when you refuse to compromise in ways that hurt the liberty of infringed parties, you become a hypocrite named Ron Paul.

Let's just get on with it. It's Round 2 out of 4, I'm totally entitled to bring new evidence here, fundamentally it's not going to be new points, just a bam-bam-bam style pegging of Paul being less Libertarian overall due to his stubbornness and ignorance and Johnson consistently being more so (usually more through action than words, since Paul contrasts this by being much more of a talker than anything that actually changes things in politics).

Let's just begin with some beautiful facts against the illusory consistency of RP and his stances being in perfect alignment with Libertarianism:


After spelling out the good stuff from the leftist perspective — a 15 percent Defense Department spending cut ending all funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — the hard charge backward commences:

  • No more aid to education. Goodbye, Department of Education.
  • No more government-subsidized housing. Goodbye, Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  • No more energy programs. Goodbye, Department of Energy.
  • No more programs to promote commerce and technology. Goodbye, Department of Commerce.
  • *No more national parks. Goodbye, Department of the Interior.
  • His opposition to the very existence of the Federal Reserve — he wrote a book titled “End the Fed” — is straight out of Rand, as is his promotion of the gold standard.

Paul would not reform the abysmally flawed and underfunded Securities and Exchange Commission, he would eliminate it. The only agency of the federal government that stands between the public and greedy bankers and crooked corporations would be gone. He is philosophically opposed to it, as he is to Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, the reform measures enacted after Enron and the 2008 financial crisis, respectively. His Reformed America would no longer discomfit Wall Street with the latter’s restrictions on banks or annoy corporate executives with Sarb-Ox’s ethics and fair-disclosure rules.

And this is but the beginning of the shower of blessings that would rain down upon the very richest Americans. He would end the income tax, thereby making the United States the ultimate onshore tax haven. The message to both the Street and corporate America would be a kind of hyper-Reaganesque “Go to town, guys.” With income, estate and gift taxes eliminated and the top corporate tax rate lowered to 15 percent (and not a word about cutting corporate tax loopholes), a kind of perma-plutonomy would come to exist in the land — to the extent that there isn’t one already.
- [15]

Let's remind ourselves of the core value/aspect of Libertarianism that Paul consistently shows disregard for in his pseudo-purist form of it:


Individualism
Libertarians embrace individualism insofar as they attach supreme value to the rights and freedoms of individuals. Although various theories regarding the origin and justification of individual rights have been proposed—e.g., that they are given to human beings by God, that they are implied by the very idea of a moral law, and that respecting them produces better consequences—all libertarians agree that individual rights are imprescriptible—i.e., that they are not granted (and thus cannot be legitimately taken away) by governments or by any other human agency. Another aspect of the individualism of libertarians is their belief that the individual, rather than the group or the state, is the basic unit in terms of which a legal order should be understood.
- [7]

This is very important to read in detail and not just skim over. When it says "all libertarians agree that individual rights are imprescriptible—i.e., that they are not granted (and thus cannot be legitimately taken away) by governments or by any other human agency." One may almost not notice that it says 'by any other human agency at the end of that sentence... Alas, it does. So, Paul is so consistently obsessed with 'freeing the rich to stay rich' that he forgets this one element where Johnson does not.

Gary Johnson, on the other hand, shows full understanding of this being contradictory to core Libertarian values and has explained intentions to make decisions that ensure the greatest liberty for all as opposed to only for the rich:

In 1996, the Governors, Congress, and the administration entered into a historic welfare reform agreement. In exchange for assuming the risk involved with accepting the primary responsibility for transforming the welfare system from one of dependency to self-sufficiency, Governors agreed to guaranteed funding for the life of the TANF block grant along with significant flexibility to administer federal programs. The current NGA policy on welfare reform makes three key points:

  1. Maintain flexibility. The TANF block grant was created so that states could develop innovative approaches to addressing welfare reform, and states have been successful in tailoring their programs to meet the individual needs of their citizens. This flexibility must be maintained so that states can continue the progress of welfare reform.
  2. Maintain investment. States are provided with $16.5 billion each year in federal TANF funds, which together with the required state maintenance-of-effort funds, finance welfare reform. Some will argue that the funding should be cut because of the dramatic drop in caseloads. But TANF is no longer just about cash assistance - states are now serving a much broader population than under the old welfare system, and states are now providing services to families that help them succeed and advance in the workplace, not just cutting a check for cash each month.
  3. Move toward greater program alignment. The Food Stamp Program is one example of a program that is in great need of reform, and its connection to welfare reform should be discussed in the context of reauthorization. Other related programs that should be considered include child support, child welfare, housing, the Workforce Investment Act and Medicaid.
- [16]

This compromising of Johnson is not at all flying in the face of Libertarian values, it's called making it work instead of proposing an impossible system of liberty that will implode in on itself the minute you let the rich prey on the poor.

This is just one of many, many examples of Paul being either ignorant or cunning in his apparent purity of Libertarianism whereby he is directly enabling oppression of the poor or other vulnerable people in society the moment his system would be put in place. There's a reason why Muslims are calling Paul 'their kind of Republican'[20] (not Libertarian) and why Johnson has so much opposition and loathing and the reason is that Paul is a joke candidate who never would win and neither will his son and he supported turning a blind eye to not just the genocide and oppression of people in the Middle East and North Africa but to actively allow Iran to become a nuclear superpower that could very well threaten the US and enable the US to become a colony of such nations (which then would oppress and lead to genocide of the American people at the hands of the new, miltaristically- superior Sharia government).

Let's first look at the exact principles of Libertarianism that would lead one to take Johnson's stances rather than Paul's:

Power
A fundamental characteristic of libertarian thinking is a deep skepticism of government power. Libertarianism and liberalism both arose in the West, where the division of power between spiritual and temporal rulers had been greater than in most other parts of the world. In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), I Samuel 8: 17–18, the Jews asked for a king, and God warned them that such a king would “take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” This admonition reminded Europeans for centuries of the predatory nature of states. The passage was cited by many liberals, including Thomas Paine and Lord Acton, who famously wrote that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Libertarian skepticism was reinforced by events of the 20th century, when unrestrained government power, among other factors, led to world war, genocide, and massive human rights violations.

Peace and International Relations
In international affairs, libertarians emphasize the value of peace. That may seem unexceptional, since most (though not all) modern thinkers have claimed allegiance to peace as a value. Historically, however, many rulers have seen little benefit to peace and have embarked upon sometimes long and destructive wars. Libertarians contend that war is inherently calamitous, bringing widespread death and destruction, disrupting family and economic life, and placing more power in the hands of ruling classes. Defensive or retaliatory violence may be justified, but, according to libertarians, violence is not valuable in itself, nor does it produce any additional benefits beyond the defense of life and liberty.
- [7]

At a first glance, Paul is a purist on these matters but that is to totally ignore what he is enabling and encouraging. Prop says:

Paul would admit that, in cases of self-defense, military force is necessary. The world does not have many such cases; America is not as threatened as some would like to think. “I am convinced that there are more threats to American liberty within the 10 mile radius of my office on Capitol Hill than there are on the rest of the globe.”

The issue Prop completely fails to mention is that the only reason America is so safe from outside threats is because of the CIA and international involvement in a preemptive manner of defence. You cannot be only 'reacting to threats as they come' and hope to not end up completely decimated by your enemy/enemies. This is what Paul comprehends but still he does his level best to remain minimalist while not unrealistic on the matter. In fact, there's so much to Johnson's outlook that it's quite too in depth to entirely quote here but what I will note is that Paul just talks and puts up a vote on the easiest, simplest solution to anything that seems to infringe the least on immediate rights... Johnson not only has done so much more in his life towards Libertarianism (the main 'business' he was into was a Sativa Cannabis product manufacturer which he gave up, leaving behind an easy life for a tough one running again in 2016 for president[17]).

Where Paul either completely flip-flops between saying it's completely okay what Sharia regimes are doing to their people to outright encouraging Iran to become a nuclear superpower:


We installed Shah in Iran; we should mind our own business
Q: [to Ron Paul]: Your policy towards Iran is: No sanctions?
PAUL: No, that makes it much worse. This whole idea of sanctions, all these pretend free traders, they're the ones who put on these trade sanctions.

SANTORUM: Well, as the author of the Iran Freedom Support Act, which he is criticizing, it actually imposed sanctions on Iran because of their nuclear program--Iran is not Iceland, Ron. Iran is a country that has been at war with us since 1979. Iran is a country that has killed more American men and women in uniform than the Iraqis and the Afghanis have. The Iranians are the existential threat to the state of Israel, via funding of Hamas and Hezbollah and the support of Syria.

PAUL: The senator is wrong on his history. We've been at war in Iran for a lot longer than 1979. We started it in 1953 when we sent in a coup, installed the shah, and the blowback came in 1979. It's been going on and on because we just plain don't mind our own business. That's our problem.
- [18]

Meanwhile, Johnson not only talks but does things to actively stop oppression and anti-Libertarian regimes being capable of destroying the US via terrorism and other means (such as nuclear) while maintaining a strong anti-torture stance and minimalist attitude to policy throughout. When I say 'done' and 'enacted' I mean he really has done so much as leader of the National Governor's Association (NGA) which he did before he ever had all that much power and recognition as leader of the Libertarian Party and was growing tired of the anti-Libertarian attitudes and stances of his colleagues and voters in and for the Republican Party.
In fact let's begin with a classic example of Paul being melodramatic and denying some facts while Johnson keeps his words short and simple and states simply where he stands on the matter (spoiler: they agree but Johnson doesn't deny something Santorum says as he isn't the type to lie to seem more true to Libertarianism, this is prior to the 2012 elections back when nominations were still being decided):


Q: Would you support a resumption of waterboarding under any circumstances?
SANTORUM: Under certain circumstances or any circumstances?

Q: Under any circumstances that you could imagine.

SANTORUM: Sure.

JOHNSON: I would not.

PAUL: No, I would not, because you don't achieve anything.

SANTORUM: Well it's just simply not true, Ron. The fact is that what we found is that some of this information that we find out that led to Osama Bin Laden actually came from these enhanced interrogation techniques.

PAUL: Not true.

SANTORUM: And by the way we wouldn't have been able to launch a raid into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden if we weren't in Afghanistan.

CAIN: I heard Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say it very clearly a few months after 9/11 2001 after the tragedy, the terrorist have one objective, to kill of us and so, yes, I believe that we should do whatever means possible in order to protect the people of this nation, that's their ultimate goal.
- [19]

That right there is classic Paul, has to say 'not true' to a fact and show complete hostility to the CIA and anti-terrorism movements so as to appeal to Muslim voters in fact let's just see how delusional some of Paul's supporters are about what Libertarianism is and what Islam stands for:
Paul’s Muslim supporters say it’s not all about foreign policy or civil liberties. They also make the case that Islam, founded by a prophet who was a successful merchant, also has a soft spot for free markets.

Following a natural disaster that caused the price of commodities to soar, Prophet Muhammad rejected price controls, said Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, founder of the Minaret of Freedom Institute in Bethesda, Md., whose mission includes exposing Muslims to free-market thought.

“Allah grants plenty or shortage,” Muhammad said, according to Islamic tradition. “He is the sustainer and real price maker.”

It’s the kind of small-government, go-it-alone approach that resonates with Adolf’s frontier mindset.

“I think there are some very strong libertarian values in Islam, but many Muslims don’t see them,” said Adolf. “If it’s not causing harm to the community, then its really nobody’s business.”
- [20]

Just to be clear the 'Adolf' is obviously not Adolf Hitler although it is very curious why this Muslim convert called herself that. Anyway, when people supporting Ron Paul are saying that Muhammad (PBUH) was a Libertarian it shows exactly the kind of misconceived version of Libertarianism that Ron Paul himself ascribes to. He simply focuses on being a Capitalist to the core without appreciating any of the other aspects of Libertarianism (which very clearly Islam stands against Liberty in almost every single way short of Fiscal Conservatism[21].

Johnson doesn't mess around with trying to appear purist because he knows that people who understand the importance of application and aftermath will appreciate just how impure Paul is as a Libertarian. You cannot stand by and let the rich prey on the poor relentlessly, the Sharia nations gain military strength screaming to destroy Israel and the US on a regular basis.[22][23]

Johnson stands for the poor but, similar to Paul, believes the best way to do it is to fundamentally free up as much as possible in government-enforced morality and welfare type programs while maintaining the minimal amount (which Paul would completely do away with) that makes him the better Libertarian and more of one in the end.

Party betrayal, ignorance of the complexity of decisions made and the aftermath on people's liberty and safety and lastly complete denial of truth in public debates just to seem 'more Libertarian' are why Paul is a poser where Johnson is undeniably the real deal.

I will happily provide more proof in Round 3 if need be but this is the Crux.

Sources [To keep this as official as possible, I continue from Round 1 and will/would Reference R1 numbers if I use a source again:

[15] Weiss, G. (2011). Ron Paul’s phony populism. [online] Salon. Available at: https://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/ron_pauls_phony_populism/ [Accessed 30 Aug. 2018].
[16] Johnson, G. via NGA (2001). Public Notes on 01-NGA17. [online] Ontheissues.org. Available at: http://www.ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_01-NGA17.htm [Accessed 30 Aug. 2018].
[17] Pyeatt, J. (2016). Gary Johnson Resigns his Position as CEO of Cannabis Sativa Inc.. [online] Independent Political Report. Available at: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/01/gary-johnson-resigns-his-position-as-ceo-of-cannabis-sativa-inc/ [Accessed 30 Aug. 2018].
[18] Ontheissues.org. (2011). 2011 Republican primary debate at the Iowa State Fair, Aug. 11, 2011, prior to the Iowa Straw Poll. [online] Available at: http://www.ontheissues.org/2011_Straw_Poll.htm [Accessed 30 Aug. 2018].
[19] Ontheissues.org. (2011). GOP primary debate in South Carolina, at the Peace Concert Hall, May 5, 2011. [online] Available at: http://www.ontheissues.org/2011_SC.htm [Accessed 30 Aug. 2018].
[20] Sacirbey, O. (2012). Muslims Say Ron Paul Is Their Kind Of Republican. [online] HuffPost. Available at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/17/muslims-ron-paul-republican_n_1211664.html [Accessed 30 Aug. 2018].
[21] Imani, A. (2018). Islam Is Incompatible with Liberty. [online] Americanthinker.com. Available at: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05/islam_is_incompatible_with_liberty.html [Accessed 30 Aug. 2018].
[22] Sadjadpour, K. (2018). Iran's Real Enemy in Syria. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/iran-syria-israel/558080/ [Accessed 30 Aug. 2018].
[23] Zakaria, F. (2016). Why they hate us. [online] CNN. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/08/opinions/why-they-hate-us-zakaria/index.html [Accessed 30 Aug. 2018].
Round 3
Published:
I am accused of not offering any “new points” against Gary Johnson. This is simply not true; rebuking my opponent’s claims about Ron Paul’s un-Libertarian stances in the way that I have -- not by saying Ron Paul did not do certain things, but rather that doing those things is a requirement of being Libertarian -- necessarily reflects badly on Gary Johnson, for, if my opponent thinks Ron Paul holds these uniquely bad stances, and I have shown them to be uniquely good, it follows that Gary Johnson does not have those claims to Libertarianism, and, indeed, runs contra.

Let me make this clear: if pure Libertarian principles cannot succeed, if they are doomed to stay chained-up in the land of the Ideal, then the pragmatist with the crude approximation is not a Libertarian. He uses the name of the perfect Idea for something much different. The oracle who dies without any followers, but with conviction in crystalline Ideology, might not change the world, but is still an incomparably closer disciple of Truth.

****

My opponent offers a handy list of Libertarian stances that Ron Paul adheres to. I’ll give a short commentary.

No more aid to education. Goodbye, Department of Education.

No more government-subsidized housing. Goodbye, Department of Housing and Urban Development.
 
No more energy programs. Goodbye, Department of Energy.

No more programs to promote commerce and technology. Goodbye, Department of Commerce.

No more national parks. Goodbye, Department of the Interior.

None of these Departments are not concerned with protecting the Rights of Man. They are outside the scope of the Libertarian State, and their funding via taxation is theft.

His opposition to the very existence of the Federal Reserve — he wrote a book titled “End the Fed” — is straight out of Rand, as is his promotion of the gold standard. 

Paul would not reform the abysmally flawed and underfunded Securities and Exchange Commission, he would eliminate it.

Currency and trade should not be regulated by a central, de-facto State entity. This is one of the more obvious Libertarian principles.

My opponent goes on to misinterpret a quote about Libertarianism.

When it says "all libertarians agree that individual rights are imprescriptible—i.e., that they are not granted (and thus cannot be legitimately taken away) by governments or by any other human agency." One may almost not notice that it says 'by any other human agency at the end of that sentence...
There is a rhetorical trick here. Of course Ron Paul recognises the "almost unnoticeable" fact that Libertarianism does not allow anyone - State or otherwise - to strip rights from men. In fact, this is quite obvious; Governments are made up of people, and so there is nothing else than "human agency". It would be a silly distinction to stuff up.

I cannot shoot you unprovoked. Ron Paul would agree. But I can limit your access to my property without violating, say, your right to movement. This is because your right to movement cannot violate my human right to property and free association, and that right to property has temporal priority. My opponent misses this: his solution to what he sees as "rights-violations by the rich" are nothing more than pre-emptive violations against them. The worst part is that the rich do not necessarily have to violate the rights of the poor; in fact, without any other assumption, they do not (not merely by existing). While life as a poor person might be terrible under Libertarianism (for the sake of the argument), this does not mean that any rights are being violated. My opponent has yet to offer reason to believe otherwise.

It's odd that my opponent keeps bringing up the tragic state of the Middle East. I agree - it's a terrible state of affairs. I disagree with the implication that, because of this, These States United have an obligation to help. My opponent can show no coherent Libertarian justification otherwise, while, last round, I have shown why he cannot.

If this is so, I will offer a speech given by Ron Paul on September 11th, 2001, the day when our National Bloodlust was at an unprecendented peak. Note how, even at such a time, he wavered not from his principles, and refuted the kinds of arguments my opponent now rehashes. 


Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Americans were awakened to find ourselves in a war, attacked by barbarians who targeted innocent civilians. This despicable act reveals how deep-seated is the hatred that has driven this war.
Though many Americans have just become aware of how deeply we are involved in this war, it has been going on for decades. We are obviously seen by the terrorists as an enemy. In war there is no more reprehensible act than for combatants to
slaughter innocent civilians who are bystanders. That is what happened yesterday. If there is such a thing, a moral war is one that is only pursued in self-defense. Those who initiate aggression against others for the purpose of occupation or merely to invoke death and destruction are unforgivable and serve only to spread wanton killing. In our grief, we must remember our responsibilities. The Congress' foremost obligation in a constitutional republic is to preserve freedom and provide for national security. Yesterday our efforts to protect our homeland came up short. Our policies that led to that shortcoming
must be reevaluated and changed if found to be deficient. When we retaliate for this horror we have suffered, we must be
certain that only the guilty be punished. More killing of innocent civilians will only serve to flame the fires of war and further jeopardize our security. Congress should consider using its constitutional authority to grant letters of marque and reprisals to meet our responsibilities. Demanding domestic security in times of war invites carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for their freedoms to be sacrificed on the alter of authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and secure. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if we willingly gave up some of our cherished liberties while defending ourselves from their threat. It is our job to wisely choose our policies and work hard to understand the root causes of war in which we find ourselves.
We must all pray for peace and ask for God's guidance for our President, our congressional leaders,
and all America, and for the wisdom and determination required to resolve this devastating crisis.


Published:
Before anything I'll defend against Pro's Round 3.

I am accused of not offering any “new points” against Gary Johnson. This is simply not true; rebuking my opponent’s claims about Ron Paul’s un-Libertarian stances in the way that I have -- not by saying Ron Paul did not do certain things, but rather that doing those things is a requirement of being Libertarian -- necessarily reflects badly on Gary Johnson, for, if my opponent thinks Ron Paul holds these uniquely bad stances, and I have shown them to be uniquely good, it follows that Gary Johnson does not have those claims to Libertarianism, and, indeed, runs contra.

- Pro R3

One thing that stood out to me here is the following snippet:
... if my opponent thinks Ron Paul holds these uniquely bad stances, and I have shown them to be uniquely good, it follows that Gary Johnson does not have those claims to Libertarianism...
- Pro R3

Hold up, hold up... When did being 'good' become equal to being Libertarian? In Round 1, Pro says:

4. Finally, the correctness or value of Libertarianism (whether one should adhere to Libertarianism), being separate to the issue of how much one does adhere to it, is totally irrelevant.
- Pro R1

So how does being 'good' or 'bad' have anything to do with the debate? By Pro's own outline of the debate, it does not.

Also I was most confused as to where in my entire R3 I said that Pro had never brought points against Johnson. What I actually did was simply state:

Have you ever heard the phrase 'put your money where your mouth is'? Well that's what this debate is going to come down to.

At least, that's what it will come down to for Con. As for Pro, I'm unsure what it will come down to other than words that advocate worldwide anarchy and if not anarchy then amoral Libertinism, Ron Paul I am sure isn't intentionally misleading people on what he thinks Libertarianism is.
- Con R2

Let's just be very clear on what Libertinism is and what Libertarianism is.

A libertine is a person who rejects moral boundaries and lives “at liberty” from constraint. The result is that the libertine usually lives a profligate, dissolute life. Libertinism is a disregard of authority or a rejection of moral boundaries. Libertinism typically involves pursuing personal desires without consideration of ethics or social mores. The term libertine almost always refers to a male who is sexually promiscuous and disinterested in monogamy.

A libertine can also be a freed slave, and that is how the word libertine is used in Acts 6:9 in the King James Version. As the deacon Stephen was working miracles and preaching in Jerusalem, “there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines . . . disputing with Stephen” (Acts 6:9). This “synagogue of the Libertines” was comprised of Jews who had been former captives, either as prisoners of Roman wars or as slaves of some kind, but had been freed. The NIV translates the phrase “Synagogue of the Freedmen.”

The term libertine was used by Reformer John Calvin to describe his political enemies. Calvin was both the religious and political leader in Geneva, and he set up a system of moral rules by which the Genevans would be governed. Those who rejected Calvin’s prohibitions against immorality, drunkenness, cursing, etc., were labeled “libertines,” since felt they ought to have the freedom (liberty) to act under moral codes of their own choosing. Over time, the concept of libertinism evolved from a reference to rejection of a particular authority into a general rejection of all moral authority.
- [24]
First, I will state outright that I do not defend libertinism. As I stated on my about page, I am a reformed Christian and believe in taking responsibility for one’s actions and that a civil society must agree upon and adhere to some moral code. I also believe that moral restraint is necessary not only to the Christian, but in a free society, and so I believe that libertinism is not even compatible with political libertarianism. I cannot say however that metaphysical libertarians are not also political libertarians. The interesting thing about libertarianism is that a wide variety of personally held beliefs are acceptable in a society so long as another’s individual liberty is not being infringed upon. Philosophically speaking, the jury is still out in the debate of free will over determinism; I personally take a compatabilist approach to that debate.

Click here for relevant Venn Diagram

Those critics out there saying that Christians can’t be libertarian because of the lack of morals it has, has not given libertarianism an honest analysis, and I invite to explore it for understanding even if in the end they still disagree. At least then we can have real debate on the topic.

So for future reference, when I speak about “libertarianism” I am speaking of the political philosophy and not the metaphysical philosophy and that the oft confused libertinism is no where on my radar.

While I freely admit that political libertarianism has been defined in various forms by various people, the overarching definition addresses the proper use of force and insists that every single human being has rights that are a part of our being and not given to us by governments. It is this overarching definition that I believe is compatible with historic Christianity.
- [25]
The Rule of Law
Libertarianism is not Libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that “people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything.” Rather, Libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.
- [8]

The last quote you've already seen in my Round 1 and is the single most significant way that Ron Paul fails to meet the requirements to be a full fledged Libertarian where Gary Johnson flourishes.

As stated at the beginning of this Round, this is now going to go into where the two overlap so as to make it clear that everything about Ron Paul that makes him an actual Libertarian is something Gary Johnson either agrees with him on or does better. Paul is all talk where Gary is much more action than talk. Johnson helped run a Sativa corporation... You can't really get more Libertarian than that. On the other hand, Paul (aside from betraying the Libertarian Party for more success as a politician by joining the Republicans) used to be in the United States Air Force (USAF) and the National Guard in a period that led him to become the man who people who support Sharia Law call 'their kind of Libertarian' as well as the poster boy for the Tea Party Patriots... Albeit, not anymore but in the past he surely was.[26][27]

So let's recap where the two stand in agreement (or disagreement) regarding the core values of Libertarianism.

Nonaggression axiom
According to the principle that libertarians call the nonaggression axiom, all acts of aggression against the rights of others—whether committed by individuals or by governments—are unjust. Indeed, libertarians believe that the primary purpose of government is to protect citizens from the illegitimate use of force. Accordingly, governments may not use force against their own citizens unless doing so is necessary to prevent the illegitimate use of force by one individual or group against another. This prohibition entails that governments may not engage in censorship, military conscription, price controls, confiscation of property, or any other type of intervention that curtails the voluntary and peaceful exercise of an individual’s rights.
- [7]

Note that the disagreements they have regarding this are always due to Johnson adhering to:
Accordingly, governments may not use force against their own citizens unless doing so is necessary to prevent the illegitimate use of force by one individual or group against another.
- [7]

I have already gone over the agreements and disagreements regarding this, thus there is nothing new to bring here. 

Next up we have:
Power
A fundamental characteristic of libertarian thinking is a deep skepticism of government power. Libertarianism and liberalism both arose in the West, where the division of power between spiritual and temporal rulers had been greater than in most other parts of the world. In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), I Samuel 8: 17–18, the Jews asked for a king, and God warned them that such a king would “take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” This admonition reminded Europeans for centuries of the predatory nature of states. The passage was cited by many liberals, including Thomas Paine and Lord Acton, who famously wrote that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Libertarian skepticism was reinforced by events of the 20th century, when unrestrained government power, among other factors, led to world war, genocide, and massive human rights violations.
- [7]

On a superficial level, Paul seems truer to this than Johnson but here is what I've been trying to point out the entire debate... Paul never wants to stop Government Tyranny abroad even when it comes at the huge risk of that nation becoming so powerful in a militaristic and political sense that it can end up invading your nation against your will and turning into a non-Libertarian state (which no doubt about it, Iran and such nations would do given the chance and resources).

Johnson's stances regarding Foreign Policy (all but one or two I have made explicit in this debate) can be summarised as:

A "No-Fly zone" means war; no regime change in Syria. (Oct 2016)
Stay in the U.N., but stay out of foreign interventions. (May 2016)
Take our share of Syrian refugees; not too many but not zero. (Nov 2015)
Stop replacing bad guys with slightly-less-bad guys. (Nov 2015)
America at peace with the world; avoid foreign entanglements. (Jun 2014)
U.S. in Ukraine is like Russia intervening in Puerto Rico. (May 2014)
It is far past time to divorce Pakistan. (Oct 2012)
We can no longer afford to shell out billions in foreign aid. (Feb 2012)
No foreign aid spending unless it protects U.S. interests. (Nov 2011)
Flights to Cuba ok; trade promotes friendship. (Sep 2011)
Act in US self-interest, but wary of unintended consequences. (Aug 2011)
- [28]

Meanwhile Ron Paul, while agreeing with Johnson about being at peace with the world etc. would do nothing in the fact of threats to liberty and safety of people and ignores the Power aspect when applied to foreign powers entirely with his stances:

We don't even accept elections from overseas. (Jan 2012)
Newt Gingrich's foreign policy stances compared to Paul's. (Jan 2012)
Wartime brainwashing that Islam is inherently warlike. (Apr 2011)
We're endangered as a result of our foreign policy. (Apr 2011)
Foreign aid wastes billions, with unintended consequences. (Apr 2011)
We manufactured fear about Saddam, Al Qaeda, & Ahmadinejad. (Apr 2011)
We invested $70B in Mubarak; stop spending on puppets. (Feb 2011)
Can’t spread our goodness through the barrel of a gun. (Feb 2008)
We tax people to blow up bridges overseas then rebuild them. (Jan 2008)
Cut off all foreign aid to Israel & to Arabs. (Dec 2007)
Get out of South Korea and let two Koreas unify. (Dec 2007)
Bush humble foreign policy was hijacked into nation-building. (Dec 2007)
US must obey human rights treaties abroad. (Dec 2007)
Focus on the Iraq war and foreign policy. (Dec 2007)
Empires usually end by spending too much to maintain empire. (Dec 2007)
Stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. (Nov 2007)
No constitutional or moral authority for US action in Darfur. (Sep 2007)
Don’t pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007)
Not US role to monitor eradication of legal slavery in Sudan. (Sep 2007)
Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)
Bush mistake: ran on humble foreign policy; now runs empire. (Jun 2007)
Avoid double standard--follow international law. (Jun 2006)
Neutrality on Israel-Palestine; start by defunding both. (Dec 2001)
$140B to protect Europe creates competitive disadvantage. (Dec 1987)
Foreign aid helps dictators, not the people of aided country. (Dec 1987)

Non-Interventionism
In Latin America, standing up for allies has meant military. (Jan 2012)
Intervention in Arab Spring always backfires on us. (Oct 2011)
We installed Shah in Iran; we should mind our own business. (Aug 2011)
Worldwide interventionism requires perpetual fear. (Apr 2011)
Exceptionalism shouldn't mean using force around the world. (Feb 2011)
We spend $1 trillion a year overseas; it’s needed at home. (Sep 2008)
Stop interfering with Latin America; talk & trade instead. (Dec 2007)
Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)
Interventionism perpetuated by politician’s false patriotism. (Jun 2007)
No foreign aid; no treaties that commit US to future wars. (Jun 2007)
Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)
No nation-building; no world policeman; no pre-emptive war. (Jan 2006)
UN membership leads to impractical military conflicts. (Feb 2003)
Policy of non-intervention, neutrality, & independence. (Dec 1987)

Voting+Sponsorships
Avoid ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on supporting democratic institutions in Pakistan. (Jun 2009)
Voted NO on cooperating with India as a nuclear power. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
Allow Americans to travel to Cuba. (May 2000)
Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000)
Ban foreign aid to oil-producers who restrict production. (May 2001)
Sponsored bill invalidating International Criminal Court. (Mar 2003)
Sponsored bill to end the Cuban embargo. (Apr 2003)
Sponsored resolution to withdraw from UNESCO. (Jun 2004)
Member of House Foreign Affairs Committee. (Mar 2011)
Rated +2 by AAI, indicating pro-Arab pro-Palestine voting record. (May 2012)
Allow travel between the United States and Cuba. (Feb 2009)
Liberty Candidate: US abroad unconstitutional & unaffordable. (Sep 2010)
- [29]

I don't mean to bring new points in the last Round so I will only expand on what I have said before. Paul is extremely superficial with his Libertarianism. I have consistently stated how he would happily ignore Libertarian values when those violating it are a threat but what's fascinating to me is why he voted 'no' to cooperating with India as a nuclear power but firmly holds the stance that 'We installed Shah in Iran; we should mind our own business.'. Paul is a cherry picker when it comes to Libertarian values. When it suits him he will violate his urge for world peace and when it doesn't appear overly Libertarian he will say something nonsensical like 'Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force.' I mean seriously, why is it right to spread values? What does 'spreading' mean? How is one to spread the values of Libertarianism to a Sharia pseudo-democratic oligarchic state like Iran without forcing them to at the very least not have enough power via nukes to threaten other nations with their regime? Everything about Paul screams simplicity and superficial purity. Just as a side note it's funny how his own son supports Gary Johnson for Senate while he (Ron Paul) is fervently against the guy altogether.[30][31]

When we look at the other values such as the 'rule of law' value stated earlier in this Round and also in Round 1, it's almost unbearably deep how much Ron Paul contradicts Libertarianism in exchange for Libertinism where Johnson stays true.

Honestly, I've already said what needs to be said and all Pro can do is post some speech by Ron Paul that totally ignores what Paul has done and how superficial his Libertarianism is. Johnson left the Republican Party, left his high-earning position in an extremely dominant Sativa manufacturing business all to run for the 2016 election after having single handedly been such a powerful force for the Libertarians in the 2012 election where Ron Paul supporters were encouraged to sideline him as he wasn't extreme enough which really just meant superficial enough as a Libertarian for Ron Paul to endorse.

Sources:
[24] GotQuestions.org. (n.d.). What is libertinism? What is a libertine?. [online] Available at: https://www.gotquestions.org/libertinism-libertine.html [Accessed 5 Sep. 2018].
[25] Baldwin, K. (n.d.). Libertarianism, Libertarianism, and Libertinism. [online] Mere Liberty. Available at: https://mereliberty.com/philosophy/libertarianism-libertarianism-and-libertinism/ [Accessed 5 Sep. 2018].
[26] Perdomo, D. (2010). Ron Paul Helped Inspire the Tea Party Movement, and Now It Could Take Him Down. [online] Alternet. Available at: https://www.alternet.org/story/145630/ron_paul_helped_inspire_the_tea_party_movement%2C_and_now_it_could_take_him_down [Accessed 5 Sep. 2018].
[27] Paul, R. (2018). Is the (Tea) Party Over?. [online] Ronpaulinstitute.org. Available at: http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/february/25/is-the-tea-party-over/ [Accessed 5 Sep. 2018].
[28] Ontheissues.org. (2015). Gary Johnson on the Issues. [online] Available at: http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm [Accessed 5 Sep. 2018].
[29] Ontheissues.org. (2015). Ron Paul on the Issues. [online] Available at: http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm [Accessed 5 Sep. 2018].
[30] Owen, N. (2018). Rand Paul Endorses Gary Johnson For Senate. [online] Being Libertarian. Available at: https://beinglibertarian.com/paul-endorses-johnson/ [Accessed 5 Sep. 2018].
[31] White, D. (2016). Ron Paul Says He Won't Be Voting for Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson. [online] Time. Available at: http://time.com/4517360/ron-paul-gary-johnson-jill-stein-libertarian/ [Accessed 5 Sep. 2018].
Round 4
Published:
There is not much more for me to add, so I will be concise. 
So how does being 'good' or 'bad' have anything to do with the debate?

In context, "good" and "bad" are to be taken *in relation to* the standard of the debate - how Libertarian something is. I did not mean to imply anything else.

--

I have argued a number of points not properly responded to by my opponent. These include:

That, indeed, Liberty is not "ruleless anarchy";

That Liberty's very strict rules must not be violated in the quest for "moral/social righteousness" (see my response to the housing discrimination point);

That Liberty *within* a State is what is the State's duty to protect, not the Liberty of other States (sovereignty);

That Ron Paul *literally did leave the Republican party to run on the Libertarian ticket*, before realising that working within the system - a good way to get elected and *acquire a vote that can make a real difference* - is a viable way to advance Liberty without compromise;

That Ron Paul has used that vote, not in a Republican way, but in a Libertarian way;

That, in 2008, Ron Paul, even as a Republican Party member, started an ideological revolution, setting the stage for Gary Johnson's future success.

I will end, as is my wont (and as my opponent predicted), with Paul's own words (which say nothing that has not already been said).

Achieving Liberty
Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force.  If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed.  To achieve it, more than lip service is required.
Two choices are available.
  1. A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole objective.  The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty.  Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.
  2. A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations.  Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer.  This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages.  Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible.  It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously.  Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that:  “power corrupts.”
Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government.  Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression.  There’s no in-between.  Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.
Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.
The results are not good.  As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed.  The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system.  It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.

Published:
In the left corner of the ring we have Ron Paul:

  • Background of being a farmer, midwife, military man and political career player.
  • Indeed did leave the Republican Party back in the day to help with the startup of the Libertarian Party only to give up this endeavour concluding it was doomed to fail, running away to the Republican Party.
  • While leaving the Party, openly wanted his own son as leader of the Libertarian Party even though his son himself endorses Gary Johnson wholeheartedly both as leader of the Libertarians and as a Senator as recently as 2018.
  • Randomly decides policies based on whatever makes the Libertarian extremists feel he is worth cheering on and thus jeering opposing candidates to him. Examples include vehemently defending Iran's right to build nuclear weapons and to leave in peace Hezbollah to do their thing but opposing working with India and completely being anti-libertarian in having a moralistic-rooted trade and travel embargo on Cuba for being Communist.
  • Makes good speeches, votes very superficially to please the loudmouths among the Libertarian crowd and what does he actually do? Oh, nothing much in all honesty.
In the right corner of the ring we have THE ONE, THE ONLY GAAAAAAARRRRRRRRYYYYYYYY JOOOOOOOOOOOOOHNSUUUUUUUUUUUUNN!!!!!!!!!!

  • Has a history of extremely proficient business acumen that translates directly into talent in comprehending a Free Market economy and the complexities of letting it remain so 'free' that the poor end up anything but free in the end. Understand how to balance out this minimalism in order to keep the society actually Libertarian.
  • Left the Republicans during the same term Ron Paul betrayed it, had a ton of Ron Paul fans jeering him in the media ever since and doing their level best to ruin his chances of becoming leader of the Libertarians let alone winning the election. Doesn't bite back via the media, keeps his head down mouth shut and breaks records in the history of non-dem non-republican party leadership in 2012.
  • Is happy with breaking these records, settles down to be a high flying CEO of a Sativa Cannabis manufacturer but somethign inside him just won't let him betray the party and all the real Libertarians and their movement like that. So he runs again in 2016 despite brutal taunting in the media of him not being a real Libertarian let alone standing a chance to win (spearheaded by both Dems and Ron Paul type Republicans for opposite reasoning but identical motive).
  • Actually has done things as governor that were so beautifully Libertarian that the place he left behind is one of the only examples of Libertarian leadership actually working in the world without resulting in much poverty (New Mexico, yeah yeah I know it's full of drugs but that's Libertarianism for you).


Added:
RFD: I sincerely enjoyed reading the debate, and truth be told, if not for this point, it would likely be a tie. Rational did well enough to illustrate that Paul compromised on his ideals plenty. That negated adherence to the ideology a split, as it sufficiently illustrated that neither was a purist in action. However, in Round 1 there was one point from the standpoint of ideological purity that went unaddressed directly, that being the core principle of the non aggression principle in
"Gary Johnson rejects [the NaP]"
"Our standard is one of ideological purity: the degree to which individuals hold to Libertarianism"
"Finally, the correctness or value of Libertarianism (whether one should adhere to Libertarianism), being separate to the issue of how much one does adhere to it, is totally irrelevant."
If this was a debate exclusively regarding who "acted the most" Libertarian, then Rational made a compelling case and sufficiently linked Paul to having compromised on his libertarian beliefs. However, despite winning fmpov the battle of adherence to beliefs with a litany of smaller details indepedent of the point previous, and a compelling case regarding how Johnson has positions that tend to acknowledge the proposed harms of an AnCap type libertarian system and adjusts accordingly, this doesn't change that he rejects a core principle of the philosophy nonetheless. And Libertarianism without the NaP may be close, but can't be considered true libertariaism anymore. Pro therefore fulfills the resolution by illustrating that Ron Paul is more libertarian, because Johnson fmpov can't be classified as one per a flat out rejection of a foundational principle.
Well done to both of you. Arguments to Pro, the rest is a tie. *applauds*.
#18
Added:
--> @thett3
Lol
#17
Added:
--> @thett3, @bsh1
Wow, thanks for letting me know. Seriously messed up that a mod would hide something like that.
#16
Added:
--> @TheHammer
“I am not whiteflame. Whiteflame has is own account on this site and on DDO, and is not a member of DART's moderation team.”
He’s lying. He sent me this via PM immediately upon joining the site
https://goo.gl/images/wVmhbE
#15
Added:
--> @TheHammer
I am not whiteflame. Whiteflame has is own account on this site and on DDO, and is not a member of DART's moderation team.
#14
Added:
--> @bsh1
Okay whiteflame
#13
Added:
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ResurgetExFavilla // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Ultimately, this whole debate swings on one point, which is whether libertarianism sees it as 'good' for the government to intervene in those areas which Gary Johnson supports. Pro consistently shows that this isn't the case, that it has never historically been the case, and that when Johnson deviates on these points (non-discrimination and welfare) he is deviating from libertarianism regardless of the merits or lack thereof of said purity. This also negates con's point on party loyalty, since the debate is about ideology not political acumen. Seeing as the resolution is about which one is a better libertarian, and is explicitly concerned with ideology and not efficacy from the getgo, arguments go to pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter referenced specific arguments, explained how these arguments impacted debate, and weighed those impacts to arrive at a conclusion.
************************************************************************
#12
Added:
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheHammer // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and s/g
>Reason for Decision: Con not only had better formatted sources, but more sources as well. This debate isn't one of opinion, but of fact, so being well sourced is of the utmost import. In round 3, Pro said "de-facto", and putting a hyphen there is an egregious and distracting error, so s/g to Con.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voting policy requires that the voter identify excessive s/g errors which render the text incomprehensible or nearly incomprehensible. Citing a misplaced hyphen is not sufficient. Furthermore, the voting policy requires that voters "explain how the sources were relevant to the debate," including analyzing at least one specific source, the impact of the quality of sources on the debate, and a comparative analysis between both debater's sources. There was no analysis of any specific source(s) and there is no comparative analysis between both sides use of sources.
************************************************************************
#11
Added:
--> @Tejretics
Wow @ me next time. You should be removed.
#10
Added:
TheHammer's vote should be removed.
#9
Added:
The source of the last speech, forgot to include
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2001/9/11/house-section/article/h5503-2
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @ShabShoral
because you didn't tag me i genuinely didn't see you ask that and I'm sorry.
The answer is in the PM I sent you.
Contender
#7
Added:
How do you do quotes like that
Instigator
#6
Added:
Source 5 is missing from ym list but is according a non-important one as it's within a quote. I'll reference it in Round 2 do not worry.
Contender
#5
Added:
--> @TheHammer
he/she (something tells me it's the female in the pic) appears to be more of a right wing "red neck" type to me. She probably lives on alligator and catfish.
#4
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
RFD in comments.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Ultimately, this whole debate swings on one point, which is whether libertarianism sees it as 'good' for the government to intervene in those areas which Gary Johnson supports. Pro consistently shows that this isn't the case, that it has never historically been the case, and that when Johnson deviates on these points (non-discrimination and welfare) he is deviating from libertarianism regardless of the merits or lack thereof of said purity. This also negates con's point on party loyalty, since the debate is about ideology not political acumen. Seeing as the resolution is about which one is a better libertarian, and is explicitly concerned with ideology and not efficacy from the getgo, arguments go to pro.