…but a recent poll says 10% of Sanders supporters are now willing to support Johnson.
How the fuck does that make any sense?
Maybe those 10% are the hypothetical “Bernie Bros” who only opposed Clinton because she’s a woman.
Although according to arguments I’ve frequently seen here on Pharyngula, voting for Johnson is actually the same thing as voting for Clinton— since Johnson isn’t viable, a vote for him takes that vote away from Trump which is the same as giving it to Clinton.
Unfortunately, a fair number of those I see supporting Johnson would find the problems with that tax scheme to be positives.
anarchobyronsays
@1
It isn’t hard to figure out why. He’s a civil libertarian, like bernie, and unlike clinton. Some of us actually want the police state, warrant-less spying, drone program, assassination program, drug war, foreign war, etc. over.
Jesus the loyalty to democrats just to be the member of a party is teetering on Stalinist in this now decrepit, and formerly progressive, blog. Keep genuflecting before the democratic party, I’m sure they’ll appease civil libertarian and progressive demands one day….
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Ah yes, back to freedom without responsibility for one’s decisions, no matter how they hurt other people. Not to mention their unworkable economics. Not much to see, just wishful thinking of the selfish.
anarchobyronsays
@4
Civil Liberties don’t cover that red herring.
Vivecsays
Yeah man, fuck the department of education and AFA!
All those people who only have healthcare because the AFA stopped companies from dropping them deserve to die from lack of treatment (or go bankrupt trying.)
anarchobyronsays
@6
Again, a red herring AWAY FROM THE CIVIL LIBERTIES ARGUMENT. Maybe you all don’t know what civil liberties are. Oh well.
Do you mean the ACA?
The ACA is a disaster even by Obama’s own published report. 33million are still uninsured, and of the newly insured, many are forced into catastrophe plans (like my wife and I), because that’s all we can afford. All those plans do is pick up SOME slack in the event of a catastrophe, which would bankrupt us with or without the insurance anyway, and which the hospital would be obligated to treat anyway. So, while the insurance companies and Rx companies are rolling in money, people forced into the private market as basically taking on a new expenditure ($320 a month for us which is A LOT), for a service which offers nothing new, and leads to bankruptcy anyway.
Seconding #1. Bernie was all about corporate and financial regulation, health care expansion, and protection of lower income earners; i.e. ‘big government.’ Gary johnson is a libertarian, and therefore ‘small government’ by definition. If Bernie supporters are thinking of this guy as their second choice, they were never very interested in Bernie’s positions in the first place.
Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent.
Aw, the concern for future generations is touching. Go on…
While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy.
blfsays
The immediate problem is teh trum-prat (specifically) and the thugs (in general). Anything which has the potential to result in any thug gaining or continuing in office is absolutely unacceptable. Marking your ballot for, e.g., an antivax or liartoon candidate (except in the rare (non-existing?) case of being viable) means one less vote for a viable non-thug (typically meaning — and this is massively unfortunate — marking your ballot for the dummie candidates). Teh trum-prat must be stopped. That is the overriding objective this cycle. Hold your nose — the French clothespin protest — but mark the ballot for a viable non-thug.
If Bernie supporters are thinking of this guy as their second choice, they were never very interested in Bernie’s positions in the first place.
That’s probably the case for some. But as the post at PZ’s link also points out:
If all you’ve done is watched a few clips of Gary Johnson on the internet, it’s easy to be taken in. He knows how to talk like he wants to stand with ordinary folks against those big corporate interests. But Donald Trump does that too, and he doesn’t mean it either. Gary Johnson is a deceitful person who sells himself as Bernie Sanders lite while in reality he has consistently supported a far right agenda that would devastate the country. He hawks his liberal positions on social issues while concealing a deeply disturbing and malicious economic agenda. More than anyone else running, he knows how to put lipstick on the pig that is the Libertarian Party:…
Michaelsays
I’m Canadian, so I can’t vote in your election nor would I vote for Johnson, so feel free to ignore my comment. However our income tax system is similar to yours in some ways, so I thought I’d add a few thoughts:
I have a friend who works for Revenue Canada (or version of the IRS). They told me they actually liked the idea of a user pay system of taxation. In short, it simplifies the system immensely, and more importantly it removes the problem of high income earners avoiding paying any income tax!
“What do rich people pay? If you make $200,000, our research says that you probably only consume half of that. Which means you pay 23% on $100,000 and 0% on $100,000, an effective tax rate of 11.5%, which is about the same effective rate as someone in the middle quintile who currently earns between $30,000 and $45,000.”
I’m a teacher, so I do not earn $200 000 or more. However I object to this statement, both in the implicit “That’s not fair, he gets more than me!” childish statement, and the distorted math. The 23% is what you pay as a user. So if you spend $100 000, you pay $23 000 in tax. It is irrelevant how much money you have in the bank, or extra you earn. If you are earning $30 000/year, but only spend $10 000, then you pay $2300 in tax, which by the distorted logic means you only pay 7.7% income tax, less than the 11.5% the rich person paid. More importantly, I assume your system is similar enough to ours that with tax breaks, some people (not all) earning $200 000/year or more pay no income tax. So as I mentioned in my second paragraph, the rich would be paying their share instead of avoiding it, eg. with foreign accounts like the Romney’s.
“While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy.”
I again found this a misleading comment. The oil and gas industry is heavily subsidized, so eliminating that would make renewables more competitive. There is also a difference between ongoing subsidies, and offering grants to get a new technology off the ground.
On the other hand, I thought his comments on education, banking, medicare, and social security to be ridiculous. (I really don’t understand why so many Americans are against universal health care. I suspect they might change their views if they have to sell their house after they retire in order to pay their medical bills.)
Vivecsays
@7
Yeah, I’m not sure why my phone preferred AFA.
That being said, it’s not a Red Herring at all. Johnson wants to repeal the ACA. To do such would lead to my whole family losing health insurance, and almost certainly be a death sentence for my parents and grandparents, all of whom were either going bankrupt or considering forgoing treatment and dying just to leave some money behind for inheritance because the health insurance companies weren’t going to cover them.
So I’m not remotely sympathetic to him, or people that support him. If you think the ACA is flawed, good, expand it. Don’t get rid of it and condemn people like my family to die or go broke.
ravensays
I’d barely heard of this guy, Gary Johnson before.
According to Wikipedia, he doesn’t come across as your garden variety horrible christofascist trying Real Hard to look like a normal human being.
But there are some red flags.
1.
Wikipedia: On the other hand, Johnson opposes Roe v. Wade, believing states should decide the matter.
He is sort of a stealth forced birther and female slaver. Not a civil libertarian at all. Overturning Roe v. Wade would de facto outlaw abortion in at least half the USA.
The US constitution and courts exist in part to protect the citizens from their governments.
2.
Wikipedia: He has stated he supports “slashing government spending”, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security,[114]
This is both cuckoo and very stupid!!!
Medicare and Social Security are self funded paygo programs. The taxpayers who collect them also…pay into them.
Yeah, yeah, SS/Medicare is going broke. In 2033. In political terms that is about forever. Our planning horizon is one election cycle of two years these days.
gmacssays
@1 and 9
I actually know some hardcore Bernie supporters, who call themselves socialists, and are thinking of supporting Johnson because they think libertarianism works well in harmony with socialism.
They don’t seem to realize that fiscal libertarianism is the opposite of any form of socialism.
@anarchobyron
You can’t just call it a red herring because they aren’t following your argument. You aren’t the center of this thread. The fact is that many people went for Bernie for his fiscal ideas. Johnson is in stark contrast to those.
ravensays
I read his Wikipedia article and it’s basically unworkable, contrafactual fantasyland that would take pages no one would read to demolish. I will say he comes across as well meaning rather than a Peter Thiel who would happily use humans as a source of spare parts or dinner if that worked.
The real main problem we have right now is steadily increasing economic inequality. This explains both Trump and Bernie.
Most people who have looked, including many Nobel economists such as Krugman, Stiglitz, etc., know this.
And some day it will have to be fixed or else. Gary Johnson is off chasing imaginary rabbits and ignoring everything else.
anarchobyronsays
@7
YES it is a RED HERRING since I was talking about civil liberties, not economic programs. These are distinct forms of liberty. Drug war, surveillance, militarizing the police, warrantless search and seizure, etc., are CIVIL LIBERTY issues, SEPARATE FROM THE ACA.
Gary Johson is Great on civil liberties, bad on economics.
Clinton is AWFUL on civil liberties, and pooh pooh on economics.
So there is a reason CIVIL LIBERTARIANS attracted to Bernie could still want a Johnson win. (I myself am a progressive in economics, civil libertarian on state issues). It’s not an unheard of position, it just doesn’t mesh well with our democratic party overlords.
anarchobyronsays
@16 Libertarian-Socialism is a viable and sound position dating back to 19th century American socialism. Libertarians on state issues that involve privacy and freedom, socialist in economics (i.e., democratic workplaces not controlled by capital and capitalists).
I consider myself a libertarian socialist.
So yes, it’s a red herring when I say Johnson is great on CIVIL LIBERTIES, and everyone ignores that in their responses, conflating civil liberties with his lousy pro capitalist economics.
Vivecsays
@18
I wasn’t referring to you in my post @6, so it’s not a red herring?
I was just giving a reason why I consider him unelectable and do not have much respect for people that do vote him.
anarchobyronsays
Look into the statistics of the ACA data. All anecdotes aside. Although it has covered about 10-15 million more people, of those newly covered it’s definitely A. an added expenditure that hurts them since they’re almost all poor, B. not leading to greater medical outcomes, C. not robust enough insurance to help. And D. insurance companies are rolling in profit.
This is NOT a good plan statistically, it’s a give away to the insurance companies that isn’t helping people in the aggregate. Those are the facts given the data.
Reginald Selkirksays
#7: Again, a red herring AWAY FROM THE CIVIL LIBERTIES ARGUMENT
The Libertarian platform calls for elimination of the IRS and the Fed and dramatic reduction in financial regulation. Essentially, that means rolling us back to the 19th century economy. Good luck trying to maintain civil liberties when the economy is collapsing once a decade or so.
Vivecsays
Then expand it so that it does help more people don’t get rid of it and tell people like my family that they should die and go broke because of their pre-existing conditions.
It’s amazing how much hate mail I’m getting over my criticisms of the third party fringe candidates for president. Here’s an example.
Funny how that blog post you cite doesn’t mention a single civil libertarian issue. It’s like you go out of your way to misconstrue third party candidates (still ignoring my green party links I see), to genuflect before the altar of the democrats.
Maybe it’s possible that some people care strongly enough about civil libertarian issues that they are willing to accept Johnson’s bonkers economics, as opposed to Clinton’s bonkers economics and civil liberty policies (she’s a state authoritarian).
But no. Why consider nuance when misinformation and myopia are keen.
So what if Johnson would destroy the economy? Clinton is flawed, too!
anarchobyronsays
@23
Forcing expansion into PRIVATE industry is the problem, not the solution. We need a single payer system, or access to medicare for those who want in. But that’s an EXPANSION of the ACA, that’s a different plant.
The WHO did studies showing that any system that is FOR PROFIT first, is the least effective system for covering all people with excellence. So expanding a for profit system is not prudent!
Stop accepting democratic platitudes.
@22
Again, those are economic issues not civil liberties. I’m talking about the drug war, state surveillance, militarized police, drones as a weapon, the assassination program, etc.
Also our economy does tank every decade or so, unless it’s propped up by finance capital which doesn’t actually create anything and just exacerbates crises anyway…
anarchobyronsays
@25
Your argument is the same thing though!
So what if Clinton’s flawed, Johnson is bad too.
Except on one issue he’s GREAT = Civil Liberties.
Clinton is great on no issues.
Since you’re the one advocating the lesser evil vote, why not explain why Clinton’s entire platform really is LESS evil than Johnson’s ENTIRE platform.
blfsays
Again, it’s not a “lessor evil” ballet-marking exercise, it’s a stop trum-prat necessity. That means making a valid mark on a ballet for a viable non-thug.
#25
‘Genuflecting to the democrats’ is such a contrived expression, I’m guessing that email came from anarchobyron as they both use it. But regardless of who it comes from, “still ignoring my green party links I see” denotes massive self regard, in a sort of ‘how dare you refuse to devote a post to my arguments’ sort of way.
Vivecsays
Forcing expansion into PRIVATE industry is the problem, not the solution. We need a single payer system, or access to medicare for those who want in. But that’s an EXPANSION of the ACA, that’s a different plant.
If you think a single payer system is at all likely to happen in the US as it is, you’re either deluded or far more optimistic as I am. Considering there was even a lot of democratic congresspeople opposed to the ACA, do you really think they’d let single payer through?
All getting rid of the ACA would do is, as I’ve said before, give people like my family a death sentence in the hopes of passing something better but horrifically unlikely.
He has stated he supports “slashing government spending”, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security
Not the military?
What we spend on the military overshadows everything else. Someone cannot reasonably claim to be in favor of small government while favoring spending 6-9% of our GDP on maintaining global dominance.
anarchobyronsays
@32
Yes he’s in favor of cutting military spending. He wants a starting cut of 43%
Could you all please look up third party candidates before you trash talk them in favor of the establishment?
anarchobyron@#33: Could you all please look up third party candidates before you trash talk them in favor of the establishment?
Show me where I have ever said anything in favor of the establishment. Then we’ll talk.
anarchobyronsays
“Not the military?”
Yes the military too.
ravensays
It’s amazing how much hate mail I’m getting over my criticisms of the third party fringe candidates for president.
My experience is similar.
The average Loonytarian or Greenie supporter on the net is…a 4 foot tall, warty green skinned, under the bridge dweller with a very small head.
If you judge a party by the actual members of the party, they look like something from a dystopian future, post-Catastrophe.
gmacssays
Anarchobyron,
You called it a red herring because they arguing the same issue you were (ie civil liberties). There are plenty of civil libertarians within the Democratic Party, even if Hillary doesn’t have a stellar record.
I specifically pointed out that there are people drawn to mainly to Bernie’s socialist message, and that Johnson’s hardcore fiscal libertarian policies are starkly at odds with this. Just because civil libertarianism is compatible with socialism doesn’t mean that economic and fiscal libertarianism are red herrings. You’re dodging a valid criticism of inconsistent ideological choices.
By the way, I consider myself a socialist and civil libertarian, too. That doesn’t mean I’m going to ignore Johnson’s absolutely disastrous economic ideas. There’s no rule saying a person with far-left ideology can’t also be pragmatic about their choices. Disagreeing with you does not mean I’m “genuflecting” to the DNC.
appleheadsays
Boy oh boy, it’s almost like Bernie Bros are a mob of delusional, credulous and frankly moronic angry white people who blindly follow just about any white cishet populist Savior they come across!
Vivecsays
And, on cue, Applehead shows up to declare a certain candidate’s supporters are all one particular demographic, an argument they will swiftly walk back when called out on it.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
On civil liberties, irresponsible or responsible? Irresponsible anti-vaxer: I won’t vaccinate my child, and fuck whoever gets sick from them. Responsible anti-vaxer: I won’t vaccinate my child, but here is proof of insurance for $10,000 for every other person my child makes sick, 100,000 for every person hospitalized from that sickness, and $1,000,000 for every person who dies from being infected by my child.
I’m for the responsible action every time.
lotharloosays
Come on, all this hyperbole is just stupid. Gary Johnson is worse than Trump when it comes to economy … probably but that requires you to believe that you can actually predict or at least have an idea of what Trump is going to do. But that is impossible, nobody, not even Trump knows what he is going to do, he has no policy positions aside from impossible positions such as building a ridiculous wall, or deporting millions of people. Trump is making it up as he goes along and thus comparing him to other candidates is by default silly.
However, it is true that Johnson’s economic policies are going to be disaster. Like a typical Libertarian, he is deluded and wants to do fairy tale economy and magic policies. But on the other hand, if you are a single issue voter, then there might be reasons to vote for him. For example, among Trump, Clinton and Johnson, he is the only one who has a non-hawkish foreign policy position (at least as far as I have read about him).
Becca Stareyessays
@anarchobyron
Okay, let’s talk civil liberties.
Allow me to be blunt. I have several people close to me dependent on Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security for their lives and current health. Johnson’s policies would remove that aid — some would be able to make it work by increased burdens on their families*. Some won’t.
Clinton is the status quo, but the status quo is the place where my loved ones are mostly making ends meet. If asked to choose between the status quo and ‘increased civil liberties, but your friends can’t afford chemo/psych meds/etc.’, I am going to choose the status quo. Because the necessary pretext to enjoying civil liberties is to be alive and not spending 24-7 focused on survival.
(Add in that Roe versus Wade? Important part of civil liberties of those of us with uteri. Johnson has pretty much said he won’t protect that. And I’d be skeptical if he would be willing to, say, support non-discrimination ordinances that protect minority residents from getting fired, denied housing, etc. because that would be interfering with the free market. Again, my ability to not get fired for my sexual orientation and practice bodily autonomy is an important part of my civil liberties.)
* Which are low enough income that Johnson’s tax programs would mean less take-home income with them right as their expenses go up.
2. Clinton is actually pretty great on women’s issues, both in a relative and absolute sense, here elsewhere in the world. Perfect? No.
Vivec: I am truly very sorry for your family’s ill health and financial predicaments, and glad they are able to benefit from the ACA. But anarchobyron is correct on a few important points: that millions of people remain uninsured and subject to the tragic choices you describe, and that many who are insured are still subject to that same dilemma.
It’s not a secret that USians pay much more for their health care and have worse outcomes than advanced economies with single payer systems. I don’t think the answer is expanding the ACA, because the very essence of for-profit healthcare is downright evil. The compromise, the bridge to a single payer system, was and still is the Medicare buy-in option. Nancy Pelosi’s House delivered that on a silver platter: it was DOA in the Senate because of conservatives like Lieberman, and Obama had already killed it anyway. I watched him do it.
Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Ysays
And, on cue, Applehead shows up to declare a certain candidate’s supporters are all one particular demographic, an argument they will swiftly walk back when called out on it.
The term “Bernie Bros” has never been held to be equivalent to “anyone who at any point supported Bernie Sanders for any reason. Your pretense otherwise is, at this point, intellectually and regular dishonest.
Vivecsays
The term “Bernie Bros” has never been held to be equivalent to “anyone who at any point supported Bernie Sanders for any reason. Your pretense otherwise is, at this point, intellectually and regular dishonest.
It has when applehead uses it, having repeatedly and specifically asserted that I am a Bernie bro despite never having been a particularly vociferous Bernie supporter.
Vivecsays
Want me to get specific posts where applehead asserts that I am both a Bernie Bro and a white male? Because there are plenty.
unclefrogysays
the only way a libertarian society could exist in reality is under a despotic authoritarian leader who administers the state in a benevolent way strictly following the religion of Libertarian-ism
uncle frogy
This is a side issue but it simply doesn’t follow that thinking Roe v Wade (or Casey or the recent case from Texas) were decided incorrectly and/or should be overturned that one must think abortion should be illegal. It is perfectly cogent to say that while abortion is a human right the constitution fails to protect that right. This really isn’t that hard to understand. Look a plain reading of the constitution until the 13th amendment was ratified allowed for chattel slavery, despite chattel slavery being grossly immoral.
I’m of the opinion that Roe was decided wrong. There simply isn’t enough textual evidence to support a right to privacy required to protect abortion in the consitution. The right to privacy you can get in the prenumba and the 9th amendment is rather weak. And there’s a whole slew of papers that talk about this.
In the long run we all would be better off, including people capable of having abortions, if Roe was overturned and the constitution was amended to explicitly protect abortion via either a right to privacy or bodily autonomy.
Now given political realities I would not support a candidate promising to do that. Because the pro life movement is just too strong at this time.
If you can not think of any public policy position you prefer is disallowed, or isn’t required by, the constitution you are approaching constitutional interpretation wrong.
I can think of loads of public policy I prefer that is neither allowed nor required by the constitution.
And for the main topic of the thread there’s zero chance that Johnson will end life as we know it; there’s a nontrivial chance that Trump will either cause nuclear war or a military coup. So yes Trump is clearly worse.
Sorry in the above prenumba should be penumbra. Typo.
chigau (違う)says
Mike Smith #50
In the long run we all would be better off, including people capable of having abortions, if Roe was overturned and the constitution was amended to explicitly protect abortion via either a right to privacy or bodily autonomy.
Do you envision
a. Roe overturned
and
b. the constitution amended to explicitly protect abortion via either a right to privacy or bodily autonomy
.
occurring at the same time?
a then b?
b then a?
.
The order could be crucial.
Err this is purely academic because I think we are stuck with Roe in my lifetime but I would, of course, prefer either the amendment and overturn happen exactly at the same time or the amendment passing first.
Again I would never vote for some one who takes this line now because the pro-life movement is too strong. Nonetheless it is my preference ultimately.
chigau (違う)says
Mike Smith #53
Did you know that it is possible to address commenters by name?
Especially when you are addressing them directly.
@chigau
Yes but I don’t care if people just use MS or a number. Or even hey fuckface. It only matters if it is clear that I’m addressing a certain post. Chigau is no more specific than a post number.
You don’t generally preface ever comment with a person’s name you make in meatspace.
Golden rule bud; it makes zero difference to me if I’m addressed by name in this context. We are not friends, in the same cohort or anything requiring friendly behavior. And for the record most handles here are in fact lies…I’m not really mike smith! Shocking I know.
Tldr: your handle is hard for me to remember and I don’t expect people to use my handle so in not going to bother always using other’s.
chigau (違う)says
I am capable of selecting and copying text and then pasting that text.
That is how I direct my comments
to the person who made the comment.
.
WTF is a Golden rule bud?
My phone is, which is how I am usually commenting, does not have copy/paste that I can use easily.
But regardless of that, I think this clearly a case of the golden rule being exhaustive. The golden rule being either do onto others as you would have them do onto you or in the negative formulation do not do onto as you would have them not do onto you. I don’t care how I’m addressed in this context–mike, Mitch (knickname), post number, random insult–as such I’m completely nonplussed by how I address others as long I’m clear to whom I’m addressing comments. That you are yelching at me that I didn’t use your handle clearly indicates that you knew I was talking to you.
That you are a person only entitles you to the treatment I demand from others. I’m explicitly not demanding I be addressed by name/handle. So no I’m not always going bother writing handles or handles out in full.
You may find this rude and abrasive. Tough shit. I’m treating everyone fairly and not demand better treatment from others. I’m not going to respond on this line again as thread jack.
unclefrogysays
even I can sound so self-important that I am reluctant to post and kind of ashamed when I do because I do come off as a pompous ass.
uncle frogy
chigau (違う)says
Urban Dictionary nonplussed
Often misused as meaning unfazed, but actually means bewildered. English majors are nonplussed about how “nonplussed” has, over time, become so misused.
hexidecimasays
libertarian = all for freedom to do what they want and for laws to keep you horrible people from doing what you want
And Jill Stein with the Green Party is just as pathetic as a candidate, spouting anti-vaxxer nonsense.
mithrandirsays
hexidecima @60:
libertarian = all for freedom to do what they want and for laws to keep you horrible people from doing what you want
My tweet-sized summary of libertarianism is “Libertarianism is the belief that the only rights are property rights. Corollary: rich people have more rights than poor people.”
=8)-DXsays
@Mike Smith #57
I don’t care how I’m addressed in this context.
You’re being inconsistent even with the golden rule, since the convention of naming, numbering and blockquoting could be rephrased “address people how they want to be addressed”. So making people uncomfortable by specifically doing something you’ve been told is uncomfortable to them you break the rule even if that thing isn’t uncomfortable to you. Your logic would include misgendering people as fine, just by saying “oh I don’t mind being misgendered myself”. More importantly however, this convention is used for clarity, as many discussions on this blog are long and complicated, and it gets difficult to untangle who is answering what. Many an argument here has resulted from simple misunderstandings.
Secondly, this convention is adopted for charity, i.e. the requirement on this blog that people be given the benefit of the doubt and treated with respect for at least the first few comments, which includes using their full nym.
And thirdly, while tricky it is perfectly possible to copy-paste, use html and scroll back up to check the comment number even on a mobile phone or tablet (as evidenced by this comment). If that’s beyond your skill level, fine but just admit it, apologise and next time at least type out part of the person’s nym you are able to instead of hiding behind a selfish and self-centred interpretation of an obsolete ethical maxim.
“But it’s just about he civil liberties” = “I’m somebody either actually privileged enough or deluded enough not to be affected by the social implications”.
Voting for someone who wants to tear down current social security with NO intentions to replace them with anything better because you think those institutions are flawed and should be replaced with something better is beyond short sighted. Ask all those who voted for Brexit because they think the EU is too neoliberal how that went.
+++ Mike Smith
The golden rule being either do onto others as you would have them do onto you or in the negative formulation do not do onto as you would have them not do onto you.
That’s why the Golden Rule is bullshit.
It literally allows you to take a crap in the middle of the road as long as you don’t mind. The Golden Rule is perfectly consistent with forcing your child into gay conversion camp or locking your daughter up. Genital mutilation is often carried out and supported by those who had it done to themselves. =8)-DX
You’re being inconsistent even with the golden rule, since the convention of naming, numbering and blockquoting could be rephrased “address people how they want to be addressed”.
I think that’s often called the Platinum rule. It takes the perspective of the other person into account. Remember all those dudes who say “oh, I wouldn’t mind a woman giving me a compliment on the street?
mithrandir
We once had a Libertarian here who believed that it was totally OK for a boss to demand sexual favours from an employee whose existence depended on that job. After all, it was just a business negotiation and the woman could either accept the change in the terms of contract or go and starve on the street. Her free choice, eh?
How the fuck does that make any sense?
Maybe those 10% are the hypothetical “Bernie Bros” who only opposed Clinton because she’s a woman.
Although according to arguments I’ve frequently seen here on Pharyngula, voting for Johnson is actually the same thing as voting for Clinton— since Johnson isn’t viable, a vote for him takes that vote away from Trump which is the same as giving it to Clinton.
Unfortunately, a fair number of those I see supporting Johnson would find the problems with that tax scheme to be positives.
@1
It isn’t hard to figure out why. He’s a civil libertarian, like bernie, and unlike clinton. Some of us actually want the police state, warrant-less spying, drone program, assassination program, drug war, foreign war, etc. over.
Jesus the loyalty to democrats just to be the member of a party is teetering on Stalinist in this now decrepit, and formerly progressive, blog. Keep genuflecting before the democratic party, I’m sure they’ll appease civil libertarian and progressive demands one day….
Ah yes, back to freedom without responsibility for one’s decisions, no matter how they hurt other people. Not to mention their unworkable economics. Not much to see, just wishful thinking of the selfish.
@4
Civil Liberties don’t cover that red herring.
Yeah man, fuck the department of education and AFA!
All those people who only have healthcare because the AFA stopped companies from dropping them deserve to die from lack of treatment (or go bankrupt trying.)
@6
Again, a red herring AWAY FROM THE CIVIL LIBERTIES ARGUMENT. Maybe you all don’t know what civil liberties are. Oh well.
Do you mean the ACA?
The ACA is a disaster even by Obama’s own published report. 33million are still uninsured, and of the newly insured, many are forced into catastrophe plans (like my wife and I), because that’s all we can afford. All those plans do is pick up SOME slack in the event of a catastrophe, which would bankrupt us with or without the insurance anyway, and which the hospital would be obligated to treat anyway. So, while the insurance companies and Rx companies are rolling in money, people forced into the private market as basically taking on a new expenditure ($320 a month for us which is A LOT), for a service which offers nothing new, and leads to bankruptcy anyway.
TAKE THAT INSURANCE GIANTS! Go Democrats!
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/11/16/high-deductible-health-plans-make-affordable-care-act-unaffordable-critics-say/eaWZZJNrFhm6vVPDBcdZ0I/story.html
Seconding #1. Bernie was all about corporate and financial regulation, health care expansion, and protection of lower income earners; i.e. ‘big government.’ Gary johnson is a libertarian, and therefore ‘small government’ by definition. If Bernie supporters are thinking of this guy as their second choice, they were never very interested in Bernie’s positions in the first place.
From the LP platform:
Aw, the concern for future generations is touching. Go on…
The immediate problem is teh trum-prat (specifically) and the thugs (in general). Anything which has the potential to result in any thug gaining or continuing in office is absolutely unacceptable. Marking your ballot for, e.g., an antivax or liartoon candidate (except in the rare (non-existing?) case of being viable) means one less vote for a viable non-thug (typically meaning — and this is massively unfortunate — marking your ballot for the dummie candidates). Teh trum-prat must be stopped. That is the overriding objective this cycle. Hold your nose — the French clothespin protest — but mark the ballot for a viable non-thug.
That’s probably the case for some. But as the post at PZ’s link also points out:
I’m Canadian, so I can’t vote in your election nor would I vote for Johnson, so feel free to ignore my comment. However our income tax system is similar to yours in some ways, so I thought I’d add a few thoughts:
I have a friend who works for Revenue Canada (or version of the IRS). They told me they actually liked the idea of a user pay system of taxation. In short, it simplifies the system immensely, and more importantly it removes the problem of high income earners avoiding paying any income tax!
“What do rich people pay? If you make $200,000, our research says that you probably only consume half of that. Which means you pay 23% on $100,000 and 0% on $100,000, an effective tax rate of 11.5%, which is about the same effective rate as someone in the middle quintile who currently earns between $30,000 and $45,000.”
I’m a teacher, so I do not earn $200 000 or more. However I object to this statement, both in the implicit “That’s not fair, he gets more than me!” childish statement, and the distorted math. The 23% is what you pay as a user. So if you spend $100 000, you pay $23 000 in tax. It is irrelevant how much money you have in the bank, or extra you earn. If you are earning $30 000/year, but only spend $10 000, then you pay $2300 in tax, which by the distorted logic means you only pay 7.7% income tax, less than the 11.5% the rich person paid. More importantly, I assume your system is similar enough to ours that with tax breaks, some people (not all) earning $200 000/year or more pay no income tax. So as I mentioned in my second paragraph, the rich would be paying their share instead of avoiding it, eg. with foreign accounts like the Romney’s.
“While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy.”
I again found this a misleading comment. The oil and gas industry is heavily subsidized, so eliminating that would make renewables more competitive. There is also a difference between ongoing subsidies, and offering grants to get a new technology off the ground.
On the other hand, I thought his comments on education, banking, medicare, and social security to be ridiculous. (I really don’t understand why so many Americans are against universal health care. I suspect they might change their views if they have to sell their house after they retire in order to pay their medical bills.)
@7
Yeah, I’m not sure why my phone preferred AFA.
That being said, it’s not a Red Herring at all. Johnson wants to repeal the ACA. To do such would lead to my whole family losing health insurance, and almost certainly be a death sentence for my parents and grandparents, all of whom were either going bankrupt or considering forgoing treatment and dying just to leave some money behind for inheritance because the health insurance companies weren’t going to cover them.
So I’m not remotely sympathetic to him, or people that support him. If you think the ACA is flawed, good, expand it. Don’t get rid of it and condemn people like my family to die or go broke.
I’d barely heard of this guy, Gary Johnson before.
According to Wikipedia, he doesn’t come across as your garden variety horrible christofascist trying Real Hard to look like a normal human being.
But there are some red flags.
1.
He is sort of a stealth forced birther and female slaver. Not a civil libertarian at all. Overturning Roe v. Wade would de facto outlaw abortion in at least half the USA.
The US constitution and courts exist in part to protect the citizens from their governments.
2.
This is both cuckoo and very stupid!!!
Medicare and Social Security are self funded paygo programs. The taxpayers who collect them also…pay into them.
Yeah, yeah, SS/Medicare is going broke. In 2033. In political terms that is about forever. Our planning horizon is one election cycle of two years these days.
@1 and 9
I actually know some hardcore Bernie supporters, who call themselves socialists, and are thinking of supporting Johnson because they think libertarianism works well in harmony with socialism.
They don’t seem to realize that fiscal libertarianism is the opposite of any form of socialism.
@anarchobyron
You can’t just call it a red herring because they aren’t following your argument. You aren’t the center of this thread. The fact is that many people went for Bernie for his fiscal ideas. Johnson is in stark contrast to those.
I read his Wikipedia article and it’s basically unworkable, contrafactual fantasyland that would take pages no one would read to demolish. I will say he comes across as well meaning rather than a Peter Thiel who would happily use humans as a source of spare parts or dinner if that worked.
The real main problem we have right now is steadily increasing economic inequality. This explains both Trump and Bernie.
Most people who have looked, including many Nobel economists such as Krugman, Stiglitz, etc., know this.
And some day it will have to be fixed or else. Gary Johnson is off chasing imaginary rabbits and ignoring everything else.
@7
YES it is a RED HERRING since I was talking about civil liberties, not economic programs. These are distinct forms of liberty. Drug war, surveillance, militarizing the police, warrantless search and seizure, etc., are CIVIL LIBERTY issues, SEPARATE FROM THE ACA.
Gary Johson is Great on civil liberties, bad on economics.
Clinton is AWFUL on civil liberties, and pooh pooh on economics.
So there is a reason CIVIL LIBERTARIANS attracted to Bernie could still want a Johnson win. (I myself am a progressive in economics, civil libertarian on state issues). It’s not an unheard of position, it just doesn’t mesh well with our democratic party overlords.
@16 Libertarian-Socialism is a viable and sound position dating back to 19th century American socialism. Libertarians on state issues that involve privacy and freedom, socialist in economics (i.e., democratic workplaces not controlled by capital and capitalists).
I consider myself a libertarian socialist.
So yes, it’s a red herring when I say Johnson is great on CIVIL LIBERTIES, and everyone ignores that in their responses, conflating civil liberties with his lousy pro capitalist economics.
@18
I wasn’t referring to you in my post @6, so it’s not a red herring?
I was just giving a reason why I consider him unelectable and do not have much respect for people that do vote him.
Look into the statistics of the ACA data. All anecdotes aside. Although it has covered about 10-15 million more people, of those newly covered it’s definitely A. an added expenditure that hurts them since they’re almost all poor, B. not leading to greater medical outcomes, C. not robust enough insurance to help. And D. insurance companies are rolling in profit.
This is NOT a good plan statistically, it’s a give away to the insurance companies that isn’t helping people in the aggregate. Those are the facts given the data.
The Libertarian platform calls for elimination of the IRS and the Fed and dramatic reduction in financial regulation. Essentially, that means rolling us back to the 19th century economy. Good luck trying to maintain civil liberties when the economy is collapsing once a decade or so.
Then expand it so that it does help more people don’t get rid of it and tell people like my family that they should die and go broke because of their pre-existing conditions.
@20
This is all from the new york times, not my usual critical socialist sources. Actually look at the data.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/us/politics/many-say-high-deductibles-make-their-health-law-insurance-all-but-useless.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/sunday-review/sorry-we-dont-take-obamacare.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/upshot/obamacare-not-as-egalitarian-as-it-appears.html
And this one has the most data, click past the bumper sticker praises and you’ll see it’s not the program liberals fought for and still claim they won:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html#/
It’s amazing how much hate mail I’m getting over my criticisms of the third party fringe candidates for president. Here’s an example.
So what if Johnson would destroy the economy? Clinton is flawed, too!
@23
Forcing expansion into PRIVATE industry is the problem, not the solution. We need a single payer system, or access to medicare for those who want in. But that’s an EXPANSION of the ACA, that’s a different plant.
The WHO did studies showing that any system that is FOR PROFIT first, is the least effective system for covering all people with excellence. So expanding a for profit system is not prudent!
Stop accepting democratic platitudes.
@22
Again, those are economic issues not civil liberties. I’m talking about the drug war, state surveillance, militarized police, drones as a weapon, the assassination program, etc.
Also our economy does tank every decade or so, unless it’s propped up by finance capital which doesn’t actually create anything and just exacerbates crises anyway…
@25
Your argument is the same thing though!
So what if Clinton’s flawed, Johnson is bad too.
Except on one issue he’s GREAT = Civil Liberties.
Clinton is great on no issues.
Since you’re the one advocating the lesser evil vote, why not explain why Clinton’s entire platform really is LESS evil than Johnson’s ENTIRE platform.
Again, it’s not a “lessor evil” ballet-marking exercise, it’s a stop trum-prat necessity. That means making a valid mark on a ballet for a viable non-thug.
Johnson endorses black lives matter, but I guess he’s worse than Trump according to member of this thread:
http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/08/04/gary-johnson-endorses-blacklivesmatter/
#25
‘Genuflecting to the democrats’ is such a contrived expression, I’m guessing that email came from anarchobyron as they both use it. But regardless of who it comes from, “still ignoring my green party links I see” denotes massive self regard, in a sort of ‘how dare you refuse to devote a post to my arguments’ sort of way.
If you think a single payer system is at all likely to happen in the US as it is, you’re either deluded or far more optimistic as I am. Considering there was even a lot of democratic congresspeople opposed to the ACA, do you really think they’d let single payer through?
All getting rid of the ACA would do is, as I’ve said before, give people like my family a death sentence in the hopes of passing something better but horrifically unlikely.
He has stated he supports “slashing government spending”, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security
Not the military?
What we spend on the military overshadows everything else. Someone cannot reasonably claim to be in favor of small government while favoring spending 6-9% of our GDP on maintaining global dominance.
@32
Yes he’s in favor of cutting military spending. He wants a starting cut of 43%
Could you all please look up third party candidates before you trash talk them in favor of the establishment?
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/thedcs-jamie-weinstein-gary-johnsons-strange-foreign-policy/
anarchobyron@#33:
Could you all please look up third party candidates before you trash talk them in favor of the establishment?
Show me where I have ever said anything in favor of the establishment. Then we’ll talk.
“Not the military?”
Yes the military too.
My experience is similar.
The average Loonytarian or Greenie supporter on the net is…a 4 foot tall, warty green skinned, under the bridge dweller with a very small head.
If you judge a party by the actual members of the party, they look like something from a dystopian future, post-Catastrophe.
Anarchobyron,
You called it a red herring because they arguing the same issue you were (ie civil liberties). There are plenty of civil libertarians within the Democratic Party, even if Hillary doesn’t have a stellar record.
I specifically pointed out that there are people drawn to mainly to Bernie’s socialist message, and that Johnson’s hardcore fiscal libertarian policies are starkly at odds with this. Just because civil libertarianism is compatible with socialism doesn’t mean that economic and fiscal libertarianism are red herrings. You’re dodging a valid criticism of inconsistent ideological choices.
By the way, I consider myself a socialist and civil libertarian, too. That doesn’t mean I’m going to ignore Johnson’s absolutely disastrous economic ideas. There’s no rule saying a person with far-left ideology can’t also be pragmatic about their choices. Disagreeing with you does not mean I’m “genuflecting” to the DNC.
Boy oh boy, it’s almost like Bernie Bros are a mob of delusional, credulous and frankly moronic angry white people who blindly follow just about any white cishet populist Savior they come across!
And, on cue, Applehead shows up to declare a certain candidate’s supporters are all one particular demographic, an argument they will swiftly walk back when called out on it.
On civil liberties, irresponsible or responsible? Irresponsible anti-vaxer: I won’t vaccinate my child, and fuck whoever gets sick from them. Responsible anti-vaxer: I won’t vaccinate my child, but here is proof of insurance for $10,000 for every other person my child makes sick, 100,000 for every person hospitalized from that sickness, and $1,000,000 for every person who dies from being infected by my child.
I’m for the responsible action every time.
Come on, all this hyperbole is just stupid. Gary Johnson is worse than Trump when it comes to economy … probably but that requires you to believe that you can actually predict or at least have an idea of what Trump is going to do. But that is impossible, nobody, not even Trump knows what he is going to do, he has no policy positions aside from impossible positions such as building a ridiculous wall, or deporting millions of people. Trump is making it up as he goes along and thus comparing him to other candidates is by default silly.
However, it is true that Johnson’s economic policies are going to be disaster. Like a typical Libertarian, he is deluded and wants to do fairy tale economy and magic policies. But on the other hand, if you are a single issue voter, then there might be reasons to vote for him. For example, among Trump, Clinton and Johnson, he is the only one who has a non-hawkish foreign policy position (at least as far as I have read about him).
@anarchobyron
Okay, let’s talk civil liberties.
Allow me to be blunt. I have several people close to me dependent on Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security for their lives and current health. Johnson’s policies would remove that aid — some would be able to make it work by increased burdens on their families*. Some won’t.
Clinton is the status quo, but the status quo is the place where my loved ones are mostly making ends meet. If asked to choose between the status quo and ‘increased civil liberties, but your friends can’t afford chemo/psych meds/etc.’, I am going to choose the status quo. Because the necessary pretext to enjoying civil liberties is to be alive and not spending 24-7 focused on survival.
(Add in that Roe versus Wade? Important part of civil liberties of those of us with uteri. Johnson has pretty much said he won’t protect that. And I’d be skeptical if he would be willing to, say, support non-discrimination ordinances that protect minority residents from getting fired, denied housing, etc. because that would be interfering with the free market. Again, my ability to not get fired for my sexual orientation and practice bodily autonomy is an important part of my civil liberties.)
* Which are low enough income that Johnson’s tax programs would mean less take-home income with them right as their expenses go up.
anarchobyron:
1. Fiscal conservative/social liberals (& libertarians) can fuck right off. That position is utterly incoherent.
2. Clinton is actually pretty great on women’s issues, both in a relative and absolute sense, here elsewhere in the world. Perfect? No.
Vivec: I am truly very sorry for your family’s ill health and financial predicaments, and glad they are able to benefit from the ACA. But anarchobyron is correct on a few important points: that millions of people remain uninsured and subject to the tragic choices you describe, and that many who are insured are still subject to that same dilemma.
It’s not a secret that USians pay much more for their health care and have worse outcomes than advanced economies with single payer systems. I don’t think the answer is expanding the ACA, because the very essence of for-profit healthcare is downright evil. The compromise, the bridge to a single payer system, was and still is the Medicare buy-in option. Nancy Pelosi’s House delivered that on a silver platter: it was DOA in the Senate because of conservatives like Lieberman, and Obama had already killed it anyway. I watched him do it.
The term “Bernie Bros” has never been held to be equivalent to “anyone who at any point supported Bernie Sanders for any reason. Your pretense otherwise is, at this point, intellectually and regular dishonest.
It has when applehead uses it, having repeatedly and specifically asserted that I am a Bernie bro despite never having been a particularly vociferous Bernie supporter.
Want me to get specific posts where applehead asserts that I am both a Bernie Bro and a white male? Because there are plenty.
the only way a libertarian society could exist in reality is under a despotic authoritarian leader who administers the state in a benevolent way strictly following the religion of Libertarian-ism
uncle frogy
I really hope anarchobyron posts again because I think my diet could use some more ALLCAPS.
Oh. Well, in this case:
Applehead, knock that shit off.
This is a side issue but it simply doesn’t follow that thinking Roe v Wade (or Casey or the recent case from Texas) were decided incorrectly and/or should be overturned that one must think abortion should be illegal. It is perfectly cogent to say that while abortion is a human right the constitution fails to protect that right. This really isn’t that hard to understand. Look a plain reading of the constitution until the 13th amendment was ratified allowed for chattel slavery, despite chattel slavery being grossly immoral.
I’m of the opinion that Roe was decided wrong. There simply isn’t enough textual evidence to support a right to privacy required to protect abortion in the consitution. The right to privacy you can get in the prenumba and the 9th amendment is rather weak. And there’s a whole slew of papers that talk about this.
In the long run we all would be better off, including people capable of having abortions, if Roe was overturned and the constitution was amended to explicitly protect abortion via either a right to privacy or bodily autonomy.
Now given political realities I would not support a candidate promising to do that. Because the pro life movement is just too strong at this time.
If you can not think of any public policy position you prefer is disallowed, or isn’t required by, the constitution you are approaching constitutional interpretation wrong.
I can think of loads of public policy I prefer that is neither allowed nor required by the constitution.
And for the main topic of the thread there’s zero chance that Johnson will end life as we know it; there’s a nontrivial chance that Trump will either cause nuclear war or a military coup. So yes Trump is clearly worse.
Sorry in the above prenumba should be penumbra. Typo.
Mike Smith #50
Do you envision
a. Roe overturned
and
b. the constitution amended to explicitly protect abortion via either a right to privacy or bodily autonomy
.
occurring at the same time?
a then b?
b then a?
.
The order could be crucial.
@52
Err this is purely academic because I think we are stuck with Roe in my lifetime but I would, of course, prefer either the amendment and overturn happen exactly at the same time or the amendment passing first.
Again I would never vote for some one who takes this line now because the pro-life movement is too strong. Nonetheless it is my preference ultimately.
Mike Smith #53
Did you know that it is possible to address commenters by name?
Especially when you are addressing them directly.
@chigau
Yes but I don’t care if people just use MS or a number. Or even hey fuckface. It only matters if it is clear that I’m addressing a certain post. Chigau is no more specific than a post number.
You don’t generally preface ever comment with a person’s name you make in meatspace.
Golden rule bud; it makes zero difference to me if I’m addressed by name in this context. We are not friends, in the same cohort or anything requiring friendly behavior. And for the record most handles here are in fact lies…I’m not really mike smith! Shocking I know.
Tldr: your handle is hard for me to remember and I don’t expect people to use my handle so in not going to bother always using other’s.
I am capable of selecting and copying text and then pasting that text.
That is how I direct my comments
to the person who made the comment.
.
WTF is a ?
@chigau
My phone is, which is how I am usually commenting, does not have copy/paste that I can use easily.
But regardless of that, I think this clearly a case of the golden rule being exhaustive. The golden rule being either do onto others as you would have them do onto you or in the negative formulation do not do onto as you would have them not do onto you. I don’t care how I’m addressed in this context–mike, Mitch (knickname), post number, random insult–as such I’m completely nonplussed by how I address others as long I’m clear to whom I’m addressing comments. That you are yelching at me that I didn’t use your handle clearly indicates that you knew I was talking to you.
That you are a person only entitles you to the treatment I demand from others. I’m explicitly not demanding I be addressed by name/handle. So no I’m not always going bother writing handles or handles out in full.
You may find this rude and abrasive. Tough shit. I’m treating everyone fairly and not demand better treatment from others. I’m not going to respond on this line again as thread jack.
even I can sound so self-important that I am reluctant to post and kind of ashamed when I do because I do come off as a pompous ass.
uncle frogy
Urban Dictionary
nonplussed
Often misused as meaning unfazed, but actually means bewildered.
English majors are nonplussed about how “nonplussed” has, over time, become so misused.
libertarian = all for freedom to do what they want and for laws to keep you horrible people from doing what you want
And Jill Stein with the Green Party is just as pathetic as a candidate, spouting anti-vaxxer nonsense.
hexidecima @60:
My tweet-sized summary of libertarianism is “Libertarianism is the belief that the only rights are property rights. Corollary: rich people have more rights than poor people.”
@Mike Smith #57
You’re being inconsistent even with the golden rule, since the convention of naming, numbering and blockquoting could be rephrased “address people how they want to be addressed”. So making people uncomfortable by specifically doing something you’ve been told is uncomfortable to them you break the rule even if that thing isn’t uncomfortable to you. Your logic would include misgendering people as fine, just by saying “oh I don’t mind being misgendered myself”. More importantly however, this convention is used for clarity, as many discussions on this blog are long and complicated, and it gets difficult to untangle who is answering what. Many an argument here has resulted from simple misunderstandings.
Secondly, this convention is adopted for charity, i.e. the requirement on this blog that people be given the benefit of the doubt and treated with respect for at least the first few comments, which includes using their full nym.
And thirdly, while tricky it is perfectly possible to copy-paste, use html and scroll back up to check the comment number even on a mobile phone or tablet (as evidenced by this comment). If that’s beyond your skill level, fine but just admit it, apologise and next time at least type out part of the person’s nym you are able to instead of hiding behind a selfish and self-centred interpretation of an obsolete ethical maxim.
“But it’s just about he civil liberties” = “I’m somebody either actually privileged enough or deluded enough not to be affected by the social implications”.
Voting for someone who wants to tear down current social security with NO intentions to replace them with anything better because you think those institutions are flawed and should be replaced with something better is beyond short sighted. Ask all those who voted for Brexit because they think the EU is too neoliberal how that went.
+++
Mike Smith
That’s why the Golden Rule is bullshit.
It literally allows you to take a crap in the middle of the road as long as you don’t mind. The Golden Rule is perfectly consistent with forcing your child into gay conversion camp or locking your daughter up. Genital mutilation is often carried out and supported by those who had it done to themselves.
=8)-DX
I think that’s often called the Platinum rule. It takes the perspective of the other person into account. Remember all those dudes who say “oh, I wouldn’t mind a woman giving me a compliment on the street?
mithrandir
We once had a Libertarian here who believed that it was totally OK for a boss to demand sexual favours from an employee whose existence depended on that job. After all, it was just a business negotiation and the woman could either accept the change in the terms of contract or go and starve on the street. Her free choice, eh?