Since the defeat of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary by Hillary Clinton, many voters have found themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, Donald Trump is a bigoted, narcissistic sociopath who is only running for president to satisfy his need for attention. On the other hand, Hillary’s implications in scandals and tendencies to pander make her distrusted among an increasingly anti-establishment electorate (though this may not be the fairest description of her situation.

I still have my reservations about voting for Hillary, because I know that she will probably not go the full distance to support the liberal policies that Bernie has championed his entire life. The only way out seems to be to vote for a third party candidate even if they have no chance of winning, to “send a message” to the two major parties to get their acts together. Gary Jonson of the Libertarian Party has often come up as a “best of both worlds” kind of candidate: socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. But I know one thing: Gary Johnson is not our third-party savior. Let me explain why.

The single greatest defining factor of the Libertarian Party is their belief in free market capitalism. The consequences of this belief are as follows:

1. Libertarians want to reduce regulations on private corporations, and also reduce or outright eliminate taxes on corporate profits to foster economic growth.
2. They trust the markets to pick winners and losers, and that whatever is the outcome will be beneficial to society.
3. They want to reduce government spending and attempt to balance the budget.
   1. This includes cuts to funding for programs like Social Security and Medicare.
   2. Somehow, they will accomplish this by lowering taxes.
4. They support eliminations of barriers to free trade, and the passing of free trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
5. They support socially liberal positions like the legalization of marijuana, continued legality of gay marriage, less restrictions on access to abortions, etc.

This list is not comprehensive of every policy stance that Johnson takes, but they are the ones that I find most problematic. First of all, I would like to clarify that I don’t necessarily take any issue with capitalism, as I do not believe that it is an evil institution in and of itself. But it is exactly the human abuses of capitalism that allows human rights tragedies like the sweatshops in Asia, or environmental tragedies like the BP oil spill, or economic tragedies like the Great Recession. This is the big picture context with which I approach Johnson’s platform.

Right off the bat we have Johnson’s eagerness to reduce regulations on private businesses and allow them the freedom to maximize profitability at any cost. He says that government regulations are too much of a burden on the private sector’s ability to increase revenues. But do we really want to allow big corporations to just do whatever they want? Did we really so quickly forget what just happened back in 2008? The lack of oversight of malicious banking practices is what allowed the housing bubble to grow to such dangerous proportions and what allowed the derivatives of subprime mortgages to be sold with zero restrictions. And this is just the financial industry; think about the damage to our environment that would run rampant if oil companies could drill wherever they wanted and frack every gas deposit in the United States. Think about Monsanto, and Tyson, and other giant food production/agriculture companies, and how much more they could abuse farmers and screw with our food supply. All of these problems are bad enough in the status quo and would only get worse with a Libertarian president.

This then brings me to their next point, which is their unwavering faith in markets to pick the “correct” winners and losers. But too bad we don’t live in a model from an Economics 101 textbook, because the markets definitely do not always pick the winner that is best for societal welfare. The companies that are most profitable are not always the companies that make America a better place. This point is actually the direct reason for why their previous point ultimately fails in advancing our the interests of the middle class. Businesses will always try to find a way to reduce costs which is why government intervention is necessary to force powerful business interests to take responsibility for their negative externalities.

Take the energy sector as an example: yes, more coal plants and oil drills will create more jobs in the short run, and that is probably what the private sector wants to do to expand their profit. Gary Johnson supports the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. But in the long run, when the oil and coal runs out, not only will they not provide any economic benefit, but climate change will have made Earth inhospitable. A libertarian’s response to this may be that “the markets will have devised a solution to climate change by then!” But do they really care enough to make that commitment? Or will they just say, “Oil and burning coal are low cost resources which sell for a high profit margin. We want to squeeze every penny out of this before we run out.” I would bet on the latter 99 times out of 100, because of the shortsighted nature of business.

This is why government regulations are absolutely necessary to prevent greed from taking advantage of average consumers. This is also why government subsidies, which Johnson generally opposes, towards beneficial technologies like renewable energy or electric cars are so important, because they make it easier for the average consumer to make more environmentally conscious choices. It also means that the government can levy subsidies against companies to ensure that they comply with the law - perhaps force clothing manufacturers to maintain fair labor practices in their suppliers. Yes, the bureaucracy from additional government oversight needs to be reorganized and reformed, but the solution to this problem is definitely not to stop regulating and stop giving subsidies.

Next, let’s examine Johnson’s position of “balancing the budget.” First of all, let’s not kid ourselves: every candidate in this race is advocating that we have a balanced budget. It sounds good to voters because it shows that the candidate is “fiscally responsible.” Unfortunately, a 20 trillion dollar debt cannot and will not be fixed in any one president’s term. Realistically, it will take at least two, if not three or more terms, to completely balance the budget. A large part of our deficit also comes from our wildly complicated tax code, which is in desperate need of reform. Of course, such a monumental task would be difficult to accomplish for a president of any party, especially in the polarized political climate that exists today. In addition, every candidate has already incorporated this position in some way into their platform; Johnson's stance is not unique in any way other than how he plans on implementing this.

So how does he plan on balancing the budget? A key component of this goal is to reduce corporate taxes, and pray really hard that the extra capital available for private companies will increase their profits enough to make up the deficit. Or, to put it in more familiar terms, hope that the extra capital “trickles down.” Yes, we've been there done that, went through a recession, income inequality is the worst it has been since the Great Depression. Trickle-down economics has proven time and time again to be ineffective in creating sustainable economic growth, primarily because most of the gains goes directly to the one percent (like in the recovery of the most recent recession), and certainly not enough to make up for the lost government revenues. Under Reagan's original policies of trickle down economics, the deficit surpassed $1 trillion for the first time. If anything, giving tax breaks to big business has only increased our debt, not decrease it.

The last major point of Johnson’s economic policies is his advocacy for free trade deals like the TPP. There’s a good reason why TPP has been so widely criticized by the general public, lawmakers from both parties, and even Donald Trump: it will destroy jobs in the United States as many multinational companies are eager to outsource work to cheaper labor markets in Asia. TPP also contains other nasty little clauses, like the one that allows companies to sue countries in a “private arbitration system” if they lose profit due to changes in “environmental, health, or other regulatory objectives.” It’s as bad as it sounds: if a country attempts to pass a law to better working conditions, like legalizing worker unions or tightening health standards, private companies can actually press a legal challenge on the basis of lost profits. Some parts of the agreement claim to promote environmentalist and human rights causes, but closer inspection has revealed it's mostly talk and empty promises, and not anything serious enough to outweigh the harms it causes. The agreement the perfect example of capitalistic greed implementing corrupt systems to take advantage of the average citizen, and one that the government may not even be able to defend against due to the costliness of fighting legal battles. So maybe a wealthy country like the United States would be able to continue providing these protections, but a less well-off country like Peru? Tough luck.

The final appeal of Johnson, especially for the many millennials reading this article right now, is his support of socially liberal causes like gay marriage, marijuana decriminalization, and a woman's right to choose. And yes, these positions are very much appreciated and perhaps even more progressive than some in the Democratic platform. But let’s not delude ourselves here: all of these stances are merely an extension of their founding principle, which is an almost cult-like worship of free market capitalism, the freedom for private entities to do whatever they want. Their advocacy of social causes will always take a backseat to their economic policies. And even if these causes are a part of their platform, I cannot trust a party dominated by white (a shocking 94 percent) men (68 percent) to have the answers to racial, gender, and LGBTQA issues. This is why when you consider voting for Johnson, you should ask yourself: do I really want to let those powerful corporations off the leash of regulations and consumer protections? Am I willing to ignore the disastrous consequences of Johnson’s economic and fiscal policies in order to protest the two-party system?

I implore you to further research the intricacies of the Libertarian platform, to see if the consequences of what they stand for is really what you want in a government.