Gary Johnson is shaping up to be a candidate of great contention in this presidential race. He is a factor that very few people were expecting to make such an impact just a few months ago, but with the amount on sheer discontent with the two major parties, he has become a significant threat in the running. 12% in the polls is by no means any sort of majority, but it is enough to potentially change the outcome of this election. This, however, is not the only point of controversy with Johnson. He has also caused quite the ruckus within the Libertarian Party. Johnson has said on the record multiple times that he is in favor of anti-discrimination laws-- something that the rest of the party is traditionally opposed to-- and this has led many to accuse him of not being a true libertarian.

For those who are unfamiliar with libertarian principles, the basic reasoning behind being opposed to anti-discrimination laws is based in the freedom of association, which argues that people and businesses should have the freedom to choose who they interact with or give their services to. For example, libertarians would generally support the right of a Christian bakery to refuse service to a gay couple who want a cake for their wedding. The idea is that although they may disagree with the beliefs of this Christian bakery, they still respect their right to hold those beliefs and act upon them. Libertarians are very much against the idea of forcing anyone to do anything.

In a debate with other Libertarian candidates for the party's nomination, Austin Petersen asked Johnson, “Should a Jewish baker should be forced to bake a Nazi cake?” to which Johnson responded in the affirmative, causing outrage. This is the part where I have to make the argument that Gary Johnson completely failed to make himself: of course it sounds terrible to force a Jew to serve a Nazi via anti-discrimination laws, but it sounds equally as terrible to say that a Klansman can deny service to a black person via the freedom of association. There can be distasteful scenarios either way. Johnson completely failed to unpack Petersen’s emotional rhetoric and consequently has allowed this moment to become a talking point against his values. He did an absolutely terrible job responding to this question, but this does not mean that he was wrong.

Like it or not, discrimination is an issue that needs to be actively prevented through legislation. Today we are lucky enough to live in a society where bigotry is a rarity for the most part, but we cannot fail to acknowledge human behavior. Historically, the United States has had massive problems with discrimination, and as we continue on into the future, new opportunities for bigotry could arise very easily. The success of the freedom of association relies entirely on the assumption that most people will stand against bigotry, but just how often is this actually the case? Do the majority of libertarians honestly believe that bigoted beliefs are always less popular than progressive beliefs? Without the supreme court declaring that gay marriage is a constitutional right, would gay marriage be legal in Oklahoma right now? Or would gays be oppressed by the majority of people there that are bigoted against them? What, if not for government action, would save them from this oppression? The truth is that sometimes bad ideas win because the individuals that believe them genuinely think that it is the right belief to have. Fundamental Christians believe with every ounce of their being that gay marriage is unacceptable.

In a world where there is a small minority of people that are consistently hated by the vast majority in an area, the freedom to associate puts these people in a really horrible situation, and the government stepping in is genuinely their only hope. We must realize that one of the very founding principles of the purpose of government is to protect individual liberty from mob rule. This is what separates us from anarchy. If the mob wants to oppress a minority, it is the government’s duty to intervene and restore the freedom of those people, otherwise the government is completely useless to all of those involved. We agree to have a government because we all know that we could be the ones being oppressed next and would like the same protection if it happens.

Public opinion towards certain groups is a fragile thing. We currently live in a time where millions of Americans are supporting a candidate who openly wants to deny the entry of individuals into the country based on religious affiliation. To see this current situation and not understand the potential danger of ending laws that would prevent Muslims from being discriminated against is very short-sided to say the least. It should be obvious that these anti-discrimination laws are still needed even today to keep liberty balanced: people should be free to think what they wish, say what they wish, and do what they wish so long as it doesn’t tangibly hurt others in the process. Discrimination however, does hurt people in a very serious way.

So now that I’ve explained why Gary Johnson is on the right side of this debate in the first place, allow me to introduce the second and possibly more important reason that I’m okay with his stance on this issue. It’s simple-- the vast majority of Americans would agree with him and we need their support. I admire people who are willing to stand by their principles but this is not the time to crucify the Libertarian Party’s nominee just because you disagree with him on one or two issues. The amount of bad press that Gary Johnson gets from other libertarians because he doesn’t fit the libertarian mold perfectly is troubling to me to say the least. We seem to have completely lost our focus. This is the Libertarian Party’s chance to actually become a major party if enough votes are achieved and there are literally libertarians that want to throw it away because they don’t think that he is good enough. The party is going from getting less than 1% to getting 12%, and the vast majority of those new supporters are not going to support the right to discriminate. That’s just reality. Our main objective is to grow the party right now because this opportunity may not come again if the major parties produce more likable candidates in the future

When all's said and done, libertarians have two choices: stick to your principles and remain irrelevent with no influence to actual policy, or sacrifice a few issues in order to expose the majority of our platform to the mainstream and actually gain some power. I would take the latter any day of the week. Even if the Libertarian Party becomes watered down, it is still 1000% better than any alternative that we have.

What do you guys think? Is the freedom of association a valid principle? Should the government take action to protect minorities with anti-discrimination laws? Should libertarians support Gary Johnson despite their disagreements? Leave a comment and let me know.