Why I'm voting for Gary Johnson

I'm currently a second year graduate student working on my master's degree. At times in my past, I have believed in libertarian ideals. Over the past year or so, I have started to doubt some libertarian theory of deregulation and allowing individuals to fail if they make the wrong choices. I still completely agree with letting businesses fail and in some cases individuals, but we cannot as a society let people suffer that cannot help themselves. At the moment, I do feel we help some people too much and others too little, but that is a tough issue especially when you are trying to manage this problem across the entire country. As for deregulation, I've seen too many businesses take advantage of people and the environment for a slight increase in revenue to believe that deregulation will work. Maybe libertarians would argue that privatization of public sector agencies like the EPA is the solution? Idk. I haven't researched either of these issues, but it is what I've been feeling recently.

Despite these hang-ups, I'm still voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. By far, the biggest issue for me is limiting wars and funding abroad as much as possible. We are spending an insane amount on 'defense' (although are actions appear much more offensive in my opinion) that I believe is doing very little to protect our country and other innocent people. We have drones flying over countries that can easily kill innocent people. You may argue that by taking out the bad guys we are preventing suffering they may do to innocent people. I agree that this may be true in Iraq and Afghanistan although it would take a lot of convincing that our intervention does not result in more hostility and deaths (I think it could go either way, but nearly impossible to prove). Even if we are saving innocent lives, why did we choose to help Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Why are we not in Syria, North Korea, Bahrain, or even Mexico? Because the question of whether or not we get involved is not based on human suffering it is based on politics. We only care about human suffering if it fits our political agenda. This makes me question whether we get involved in some places to gain political or economic advantages at the expense of human suffering. For these reasons, I feel we need to exit all wars. The only reason for foreign intervention in my opinion is to stop genocide or if the US or US allies are attacked. 

Obama and Romney will only continue these wars. Obama may seem like the better candidate between the two on this issue, but it is important to remember that the Obama administration has expanded the use of unmanned drones and has seemed hypocritical to me in choosing which countries to get involved and which is sit back and watch. Obama has also increased the 'war' on Americans by deploying militarized police on protesters and allowing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to pass. This act essentially removes our 5th and 6th amendment rights to due process and a speedy, public trial if we have "committed a belligerent act" which could be considered government dissent/or protesting. The decision of whether a protest was lawful or not was typically determined in a court of law, but this act allows the government to unilaterally make this decision.

So honestly, this is all I need to vote for Johnson. He is committed to getting us out of the wars while maintaining actual defense. I don't think he is as strong an isolationists as Ron Paul, so I believe he would intervene internationally when it is actually necessary. I really like Johnson's emphasis on health and fitness; I dislike his opinion on a fair tax. I doubt a fair tax would have any chance in Congress, so that doesn't really bother me.

The other huge issue I agree with Johnson on is ending the war on drugs and legalizing at least marijuana (I've heard him say that he doesn't agree with legalizing everything, which I feel is mainly so he doesn't turn off too many people). Portugal has had all drugs legalized for 10 years and have seen tremendous success. Half of Americans now believe that marijuana should be legalized. I don't believe it is dangerous. Compared to alcohol, I believe it is safe. If we are going to be consistent, then why not make alcohol illegal? Because we tried that once and it didn't really work. Why don't we understand that having marijuana illegal is causing similar unintended consequences? I mentioned Mexico earlier. In 2011, there were 34,000 drug-related causalities in Mexico. Far outnumbering deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. A lot of the drug problems are related to the huge demand in America. Imagine cutting this demand and cutting our ties to these drug lords that have such a lack of regard for human lives. Imagine the economic benefits of growing marijuana in America (we could even tax it!).