OK, so let's look at what he actually says (all from the Issues page at http://ouramericainitiative.com
He thinks "Judges should be appointed who will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning." (anyone who can't see at least four separate problems with that sentence is probably beyond all help).
"Deciding to have an abortion is a very difficult decision. As Governor, Gary Johnson supported legislation that banned late term abortions and allowed for parental notification for minors seeking an abortion." So he made a difficult decision more difficult? That makes no sense whatever one's views on abortion.
"Governor Johnson does support gay and civil unions. However, he does not support gay marriage." So he supports discrimination against one group of citizens, but in a really stupid way (offering something identical to marriage but with a different name, as if names matter)
"Non-military foreign aid around the world is something we can not currently afford." US spending on non-military foreign aid is, according to http://truthmonk.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/does-the-united-states-spend-too-much-on-foreign-aid/ , roughly 0.08% of the federal budget. If so, that makes it just noise, certainly not unaffordable.
On drugs he is actually talking sense for a politician.
Economy - I think he's very, very wrong here, but economics is an area where even experts disagree so violently I'm not going to get into that.
Environment - he doesn't actually say anything here, just makes noises.
Federal Reserve - as above.
Health Care - "However, we do not believe that government should be taking over the health care system". Those countries which do have more government involvement in health care have both better outcomes for patients and a lower cost than the US' system. Thus he is ignoring the evidence here.
Immigration - for some reason you can't get to this from the menu. Here, as with drugs, he's talking sense for a politician. Immigration is not actually a problem, but were it a problem, as all politicians seem to assume, he's talking sense.
"Taxes should not be raised. Just throwing more money at difficult problems does not solve anything. " - well, it solves the problem of not having enough money. It may be that taxes shouldn't be raised, but that's a decision that should be made on a case by case basis, not as a blanket decision 18 months before any candidate can actually do anything about it.
If this is the most rational candidate your country has, then it's in deep, deep trouble.
Politics is the mind killer. I tend to find libertarians ignore historical performance of their ideas. He does not appear incredibly rational to me. He frequently appeals to intuition, which may be a constraint of the interview but is hardly impressive.
Politics is the mind killer.
Yes it is. So why do you say the following.
I tend to find libertarians ignore historical performance of their ideas.
Society is causally one of the most complex objects in existence. It is very easy to mistake the causes of a given bad outcome. Whatever it is that you think is an example of the historical performance of libertarian ideas, I think you'll find that many libertarians are well aware of said example and do not agree with your assessment.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/meet-gary-johnson-ron-paul-2012_520775.html?page=2
So, he just announced his plans to run for president. While I realize that he has no chance at winning the nomination, I was quite astonished to see how rational he is.
For one thing, he had a "philosophy of looking at all things for their cost-benefit ratio and his axe fell on Republicans as well as Democrats". I don't know any other politician who even mentions cost-benefit ratios, since many politicans have to cater to their special interests with very high cost-benefit ratios. Of course, there are many cases when the ratios are very uncertain (innovation in particular), but there are numerous current policies that have blatantly high ratios.
For another thing, he's simply beyond the tribal mind moral-ideological crusades that characterize much of the left and right ("X deserves Y, thus we SHOULD give Y to X irrespective of whether it will work or not"). I'm not going to mention most of his particular policies (as many of them may be debated), but what was particularly important for me was that he believes that global warming does exist and that it is man-made, but at the same time, he is skeptical of the efficacy of currently-popular emission-reduction programs (global warming denialism makes me automatically want to strike any name off the list). But I'll just say that I really respect his positions on school vouchers, all the major social issues (I especially respect his nuanced position to overturn Roe vs Wade based on state's rights, while still supporting the right to an abortion, although I may not entirely agree with it), and his desire to aggressively slash entitlement spending. He also distances himself from the hardcore Ayn Rand fans (he is even understanding of humanitarian interventionism at times) and does not buy into the conspiracy theories that Ron Paul gave credence to. In particular, his positions seem closest to the positions you can read at http://www.triplenine.org/poll/index.html. I'm not as hardcore libertarian as others, as my preference ranking goes along the lines of "certain types of rational government" > libertarianism > current government
Anyways, I'm just curious to see how other LWers perceive him and his policies. Of course, the most rational politician may have to pretend to be irrational at times, if he has to get things to work.