Many people who swim in libertarian circles have complained for years that Gary Johnson is an incurious intellectual lightweight.
He makes Ron Paul, who has never worn a suit that fits, look like Percy Blakeney by comparison.
His most vociferous criticism of the major party candidates so far has been reserved for the “racist” comments Trump has made during the campaign, even calling Trump a “neo-isolationist” which really must make libertarians feel good!
With regards to Hillary’s selling state secrets to foreign movernments, Johnson is as spineless as Bernie Sanders.
With NAFTA and TPP, he stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Hillary, offering, as she does, the same politically expedient, disingenuous criticism about it containing too much corporatism while actually being on board with it.
On political correctness and the National Question, then–the two meta-issues that are shaping not just the presidential election but the trajectory of the entire Western world–Johnson and Hillary are on one side; Trump is on the other.
The conventional wisdom is that Johnson, the most salient third-party candidate and the only one with ballot access in every state, is another obstacle blocking Trump’s road to the white house.
That assumption feels incorrect, however, and to the extent that national polling this far from November matters, the data seems to corroborate that feeling. RCP’s average shows a tighter race when Johnson is included than when he is not. Johnson’s presence steals 5 points from Hillary and 4 points from Trump.
Jill Stein’s inclusion similarly narrows the reported Hillary-Trump gap, though in reality probably even more so than Johnson alone does. Rasmussen, which is Trump’s best poll, hasn’t conducted a four-way national poll so RCP’s three-way and four-way averages appear to be the same but if Rasmussen conducted a four-way, Hillary’s apparent advantage over Trump would be slimmest of all.
* Lew Rockwell, in contrast, argues that travelling across property of any kind requires permission from the owner of that property. If land comprising a national border is privately held it is only by the owner’s permission that migration may be permitted. If the land is public, then it is in essence owned by taxpayers collectively and it is thus up to them to decide who, if anyone, is permitted to migrate.