Libertarian Party

Libertarian Presidential Debate: Free to Disagree

Gary Johnson, John McAfee, and Austin Petersen at the first nationally televised Libertarian debate in U.S. history.

|

"Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?"

I asked that strange but important question during last week's debate between three Libertarian presidential candidates. You can see the second hour of that debate Friday, on my Fox Business Network TV show.

If you're disappointed by Democrats' and Republicans' eagerness to limit your freedom, I urge you to check out the libertarians.

Presidential candidate Austin Petersen, founder of LibertarianRepublic.com, says individuals should be free to discriminate—for example, refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple if gay marriage violates their beliefs.

Libertarian presidential candidate, and former New Mexico governor, Gary Johnson, wasn't willing to go that far. It's a reminder libertarians don't always see eye to eye.

"If we discriminate on the basis of religion," said Johnson, "you're going to find a whole class of people discriminated against. … So it's harm to others."

Many people agree, but the debate over the Nazi wedding cake is a reminder that laws with good intentions often have bad consequences. If sellers can't decide to whom they will sell, they may be forced to participate in activities they consider immoral.

Without freedom, people can't reveal their true preferences and show us where they stand. I'd like to know which businesses bigots run.

Petersen was quick to add that he would never buy anything from a shop that refused to serve gays. "I would stand outside these people's store and I would encourage a boycott."

Most libertarians argue that it isn't government's job to tell people how to conduct private business. As Petersen put it, "Government is not supposed to make us into better people. That's not what the United States was founded on. The United States was founded so that we could be whatever we wanted."

Some of us may want to be jerks. As long as we do it with our own bodies and our own property, that's part of freedom, say most libertarians.

The other candidate in the forum, software entrepreneur John McAfee, found a middle ground. He pointed out that whether we allow a business to discriminate may depend on whether consumers have options, as consumers usually do.

"If you're the only baker in town, it may be a problem," he said, but normally, "no one is forcing you to buy anything."

The free market gives people choices. There are lots of bakers, but just one government. That's why government must never discriminate, but if private businesses cannot, does "private" have real meaning? What about freedom of association?

Most businesses eagerly take money from gay customers—or Muslims or transgender people or people of a different race. A few won't. That's part of the diversity of a free country, and a beauty of a free market is that customers punish bigoted businesses.

All three Libertarian Party candidates understand that. But tune in and see what you think.

Petersen was the only candidate of the three to call himself "pro-life." But on abortion, as with cakes, he wants people to find solutions without involving government.

"The president has no authority to enact laws on abortion," he said. If Petersen were president, he said he would "try and find every non-coercive measure that we can to end abortion. And there are options. Ending the federal war on drugs would allow women to purchase birth control over the counter."

But like his libertarian opponents, he would not send government in to make these decisions. Gov. Johnson said, "I do not think it is the federal government's job or the state government's job to interfere in this process." McAfee said, "A woman's right to her own body is one of the fundamental issues in this country."

Sometimes libertarians sound like conservatives, sometimes like liberals. Unlike conservatives and liberals, however, libertarians stick to the idea of keeping government out of our business. Government is force, and life is better when people are left free to make their own choices.

If we didn't try to use government to boss each other around, think how much more pleasant, and free, life would be.

COPYRIGHT 2016 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

NEXT: Cruz and Sanders Win in Wisconsin

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Petersen was the only candidate of the three to call himself “pro-life.” But on abortion, as with cakes, he wants people to find solutions without involving government.

    Who explains that to the Ron/Rand Paul cult? Where Ron even denies that “rogue judges” have any power to defend equal rights, and that state governments have powers which have never been delegated. Precisely like Orval Faubus, George Wallace, Lester Maddox and the KKK.

    1. Cool story bro.

      1. This thread = Hihndenberg

        1. Do you have anything adult to say?

    2. If there is a purpose for government, repaying an initiation of force like murder would be it.

      I’m an An-Cap, so I don’t think there is a purpose for government. If there were a purpose for government, this would be it.

      1. I’m also An-Cap, Rothbard is da man. However, I feel it is important to take whatever you can and continue to march toward this end goal. MNR disliked the utility argument and the incrementalism of more practical thinkers. I say let’s take every sliver of liberty we can. Then once we consolidate the gains, we continue to press for more.

        1. Then once we consolidate the gains, we continue to press for more.

          How can you “consolidate” nothing?

          1. Any liberty is a small victory for us. As long as anyone is free to do anything, we have something.

            1. One more time, how does one consolidate nothing?
              We’ve been free to do millions of things for over 200 years.

              1. One more time, how does one consolidate nothing?

                I showed how there was something, ergo, you are committing the Non Sequitur fallacy.

                1. I showed how there was something, ergo, you are committing the Non Sequitur fallacy.

                  (laughing harder) You fail to show any GAINS.
                  Here’s the thread again. Find the issue

                  Then once we consolidate the gains, we continue to press for more.

                  How can you “consolidate” nothing?

                  Any liberty is a small victory for us. As long as anyone is free to do anything, we have something.

                  One more time, how does one consolidate nothing? We’ve been free to do millions of things for over 200 years.

                  I showed how there was something,

                  Where? CONSOLIDATE WHAT GAINS??.
                  Technically, you’ve claimed our existing liberties as having come from anarchy, ego.

              2. Are you serious?

                1. Repeal ACA = victory, less taxation = victory, reduce/eliminate subsidies = victory, elect libertarian candidates = victory, audit fed = victory, free banking = victory, repeal legal tender laws = victory, stop foreign military interventions = victory, reduce or eliminate welfare = victory, I could keep going and going. These are some of the gains I am inferring.

                  1. I could keep going and going.

                    So can Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Trump.

                    These are some of the gains I am inferring.

                    (lol) If you can’t say how to replace them, you’re as totally useless as Rothbard.
                    One more time …

                    Then once we consolidate the gains, we continue to press for more.

                    How can you “consolidate” nothing?

                    You people crack me up. One reason the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians (Cato survey)

                2. Are you serious?

                  (laughing even harder)

      2. I’m an An-Cap,

        Which has no relevance under our Constitution.
        Just as the Ku Klux Klan has no relevance constitutionally.

        1. Which has no relevance under our Constitution.

          I am free to be an An-Cap if I want to be. I am free to tell you you’re wrong.

          You know what is apparently Constitutional according to the Supreme Court? In 1858, it was that black people had no rights. In 1896 it was that separate but “equal” was totally fine for the government to do. Today it’s that the government can imprison your entire race if it’s afraid enough of you. Today it’s that the government can prevent you from growing wheat on your own land for your own consumption. Today it’s that the government can steal your land and give it to others if it really thinks it sounds like a good idea.

          Do you see why I don’t trust the Supreme Court to tell me what the Constitution says? Or are you still so dull?

          1. I’m an An-Cap,

            Which has no relevance under our Constitution.

            I am free to be an An-Cap if I want to be.

            (laughing) Who said otherwise?
            How does that change our Constitution?

            I am free to tell you you’re wrong.

            And I’m free to ridicule your wacky claim that our constitution establishes anarchy.

            You know what is apparently Constitutional according to the Supreme Court?

            (yawn) MORE irrelevance

            In 1858, it was that black people had no rights.

            Umm, that was the Constitution, Sparky. And how is that relevant to what I said?

            Today it’s that the government can imprison your entire race if it’s afraid enough of you.

            Stop drooling.

            Today it’s that the government can prevent you from growing wheat on your own land for your own consumption ?. (babble deleted)

            Umm, all those are equally possible under anarchy. But keep showing us how eager you folks are to be manipulated.

            If you must use memorized slogans and buzzwords, use them only if they’re relevant ? instead of dodging the issue. Or just stop your shameless bullshit on what I said.

            Do you see why I don’t trust the Supreme Court to tell me what the Constitution says?

            (lol) Not the issue.

            Or are you still so dull?

            (snort) Thank you for playing.

            1. And I’m free to ridicule your wacky claim that our constitution establishes anarchy.

              Taking the 9th amendment to its logical conclusion, something you love to start but hate to finish, would lead to a country without an Archon (aka an-archy)

              Umm, that was the Constitution, Sparky.

              No, it wasn’t.

              Umm, all those are equally possible under anarchy.

              There is no government in anarchy, so no, it isn’t.

              Not the issue.

              Yes, it is. The issue is whether or not the Supreme Court gets to define what the Constitution says, logic and definitions be damned.

              And how is that relevant to what I said?

              Your argument:

              Abortion is the law of the land because the Supreme Court said so.

              I then show you how many times the Supreme Court was and is wrong. You ignore them because they don’t fit your narrative. Then you whine like a 9 year old who didn’t get his way.

              1. And I’m free to ridicule your wacky claim that our constitution establishes anarchy.

                Taking the 9th amendment to its logical conclusion ? would lead to a country without an Archon (aka an-archy)

                Your “logic” assumes the 9th is the entire Constitution. The 10th ALONE demolishes your claim.

                In 1858, it (the Supreme Court) was that black people had no rights.

                Umm, that was the Constitution, Sparky. And how is that relevant to what I said?

                No, it wasn’t.

                (loL) Yes it was, which was why the Constitution had to be AMENDED!!! Go back to high school and learn about the 3/5 Compromise. How is that relevant to what I said?

                Umm, all those are equally possible under anarchy.

                There is no government in anarchy, so no, it isn’t.

                Not relevant to what I said Same abuses possible under anarchy.

                Not the issue.

                Yes, it is.

                Not relevant to anything I said

                And how is that relevant to what I said?

                Your argument
                Abortion is the law of the land because the Supreme Court said so.

                Shame on you. I never said that.

                I then show you how many times the Supreme Court was and is wrong.

                FOURTH request: how does that relate to anything I said?

                Are you done bullying me yet?

                1. Your “logic” assumes the 9th is the entire Constitution. The 10th ALONE demolishes your claim.

                  The 10th doesn’t address anything other than that the states or the people hold all other authority.

                  (loL) Yes it was, which was why the Constitution had to be AMENDED!!! Go back to high school and learn about the 3/5 Compromise.

                  I know what the Constitution says. It doesn’t say that those “other persons” aren’t citizens and have no rights.

                  How is that relevant to what I said?

                  I’m going to do what I often do when you refuse to learn and you repeat yourself, I’m going to repeat myself.

                  If the Supreme Court is wrong about what the Constitution says in case A, then it’s not trustworthy in case B. X4

                  Shame on you. I never said that.

                  Word for word? No. Is that what you’re arguing? Yes. To be fair, you believe that abortion after “viability” is unConstitutional.

                  Same abuses possible under anarchy.

                  It is true that these evils may happen under anarchy. It is not true that government would do them, because that wouldn’t be an anarchy. Also, it’s much easier to defend yourself from initiations of violence in an anarchy because the taxpayer-funded government doesn’t come with overwhelming force to stop you.

                  1. Are you done bullying me yet?

                    Obviously not. Let’s trace the bullshit ….

                    BULLY: Taking the 9th amendment to its logical conclusion … , would lead to a country without an Archon (aka an-archy)

                    Your “logic” assumes the 9th is the entire Constitution. The 10th ALONE demolishes your claim.

                    BULLY: The 10th doesn’t address anything other than that the states or the people hold all other authority.

                    (snicker) Other than the federal GOVERNMENT! So the federal GOVERNMENT and “the states” equals …. wait for it ….. NOT ANARCHY! (OMG)

                    You continue making a public fool of yourself … trolling memorized slogans which have nothing to do with anything I’ve said … contradicting yourself … now saying anarchy means “states” because your original claim about the 9th Amendment blew up in your face.

                    Your nonstop bullshit starts in response to my simple statement here:

                    (Being an An-Cap) has no relevance under our Constitution.
                    Just as the Ku Klux Klan has no relevance constitutionally.

                    https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_6036998

                    (The nature of my response is in defense of repeated aggression)

                    1. Are you done bullying me yet?

                      Showing you that you are wrong isn’t bullying.

                      Other than the federal GOVERNMENT! So the federal GOVERNMENT and “the states” equals …. wait for it ….. NOT ANARCHY!

                      9th amendment:

                      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

                      The Federal and State governments have no rights, only powers (read the 10th). If this amendment means that people may do whatever their rights allow, then it means they have the right to not be stolen from.

                      The Constitution is (theoretically) a collection of the powers given to the government from the rights of the People. The government has no more powers than those given it. If the 9th amendment means that the people retain all their rights (you think that includes the “right” to kill the “unviable”), then the government has no power whatsoever. Ergo, anarchy.

                      You continue making a public fool of yourself

                      Take the plank out of your eye and all that…

                      trolling memorized slogans

                      I’ve never even met another An-Cap in my life. I’ve certainly never memorized any slogan.

                      contradicting yourself

                      I strive for logical consistency above being proven “right”. What do you seek?

                      repeated aggression

                      You have no idea what words mean.

                    2. Fucking wacko

                      The Federal and State governments have no rights, only powers (read the 10th).

                      1) (laughing harder) Who said otherwise?
                      2) HOW DOES THAT DEFEND ANARCHY?

                      Can he get crazier? Yep

                      If this amendment means that people may do whatever their rights allow, then it means they have the right to not be stolen from.

                      It’s actually called a property right. And …. again, chump … people can be stolen from in an anarchy. So you STILL fail.
                      (laughing)

                      NOW THE TOTAL INSANITY!

                      The government has no more powers than those given it. If the 9th amendment means that the people retain all their rights then the government has no power whatsoever. Ergo, anarchy.

                      DUMBFUCK SAYS THE GOVERNMENT HAS POWERS … AND DOES NOT HAVE POWERS.!!!

                      I strive for logical consistency

                      By saying government has powers ,… and does not have powers.

                      You have no idea what words mean.

                      And he’s not a drooling wacko.
                      (walks away laughing)

                    3. 2) HOW DOES THAT DEFEND ANARCHY?

                      I know following a logical chain isn’t easy for you, but please do try.

                      If the people retain all their rights, and the respective governments are made up from powers that come from those rights, then the governments actually have no powers if the people decide to exercise them. You think that the 9th recognizes a right for a woman to kill an “unviable” human, because you think that the 9th means that the people retain all their rights from their respective governments. That could indeed be true, but it would mean that those governments have zero powers. Ergo, anarchy.

                      It’s actually called a property right.

                      Sure, call it that if you like. It does prevent taxation, however.

                      people can be stolen from in an anarchy

                      Yes, but few claim that it is good like they do now when government does it.

                      SAYS THE GOVERNMENT HAS POWERS … AND DOES NOT HAVE POWERS.

                      “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

                      If the people decide to withdraw their consent, then a government has no just powers.

                    4. RETARD ALERT

                      The Federal and State governments have no rights, only powers (read the 10th).

                      1) (laughing harder) Who said otherwise?
                      2) HOW DOES THAT DEFEND ANARCHY?

                      I know following a logical chain isn’t easy for you, but please do try.

                      (snicker) You just said it’s anarchy because government has power!
                      Umm, ANARCHY MEANS NO GOVERNMENT AT ALL! (LOL)

                      (dumbfuck has been stalking and attacking me for months, because I keep humiliating him … like this.)

                    5. You just said it’s anarchy because government has power!

                      No, I said that the legitimate powers that government has come from the consent of the governed. Withdraw that consent and you have anarchy. The 9th amendment recognizes the right of the people to do so at will.

                      dumbfuck has been stalking and attacking me for months

                      Telling Hihn he’s wrong when he’s annoying enough is “stalking”. Telling Hihn he’s wrong is “attacking” him. Hihn acting like a spoiled 5 year old “humiliates” his opponents. Anyone who disagrees with Hihn is “aggressing”. If anyone would still trusts Hihn to properly use words, may God have mercy on you.

                    6. psycho is back!

                      The Federal and State governments have no rights, only powers (read the 10th).

                      You just said it’s anarchy because government has power!

                      No, I said that the legitimate powers that government has come from the consent of the governed. Withdraw that consent and you have anarchy.

                      hahaha Liar ALSO said:

                      The government has no more powers than those given it. If the 9th amendment means that the people retain all their rights then the government has no power whatsoever. Ergo, anarchy

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_6042329

                      “ERGO, ANARCHY” (snort)

                      Withdraw that consent and you have anarchy. The 9th amendment recognizes the right of the people to do so at will.

                      (snicker) Here’s what it says, chump.

                      “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or
                      disparage others retained by the people.”

                      http://bitly.com/1RWEPaE

                      The purpose was protect unenumerated rights, and place Jefferson’s unalienable rights into the Constitution ? forbidding your fascist denial of a woman’s unalienable rights

                      You keep denying your fuckup. While continuing to stalk me for months — always being DOCUMENTED as a liar and a psycho (like here) Cyber-bullying

                    7. (snort)

                      Perhaps you should get a checkup. That doesn’t sound good.

                      Here’s what it says, chump.

                      If you can remember (and I’m not sure you can) I quoted it first.

                      The purpose was protect unenumerated rights, and place Jefferson’s unalienable rights into the Constitution

                      Such as the right to property, ergo the right to not have that property stolen by government.

                      forbidding your fascist denial of a woman’s unalienable rights

                      No-one has the right to murder.

                      While continuing to stalk me for months

                      Coming from someone who “stalks” all the articles that can be connected to anyone with the surname “Paul”, I guess I should take that as a compliment.

                      always being DOCUMENTED as a liar and a psycho… Cyber-bullying

                      Did you know that showing you that you’re wrong isn’t lying, bullying, nor being a psycho? Probably not. You’re perhaps the most narcissistic creature I’ve ever had the misfortune of speaking to in my life.


                    8. forbidding your fascist denial of a woman’s unalienable rights

                      No-one has the right to murder.

                      (lol) That’s as crazy as your claim that the 9th and 10th amendments are anarchy.

                      Now your ignorance is the definition of unalienable — as in all unalienable rights are precisely equal. DUH. This is junior high stuff.

                    9. psycho is back!

                      If the 9th amendment means that the people retain all their rights then the government has no power whatsoever. Ergo, anarchy

                      (laughing) The powers delegated in that same constitution. This is now the fifth time that you’ve said our constitution establishes an anarchy.

                      The legitimate powers that government has come from the consent of the governed. Withdraw that consent and you have anarchy. Withdraw that consent and you have anarchy. The 9th amendment recognizes the right of the people to do so at will.

                      (laughing harder) WHERE does it say that, chump?
                      “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or
                      disparage others retained by the people.”

                      http://bitly.com/1RWEPaE

                      Okay, the anarchy fuckup traces to ignorance of the 9th Amendment.
                      Did he swallow that from An-Cap writing?

                    10. The powers delegated in that same constitution. This is now the fifth time that you’ve said our constitution establishes an anarchy.

                      The 9th amendment, brought to its only logical end, leads us inexorably to no other conclusion.

                      WHERE does it say that, chump?

                      The 9th amendment. To answer directly, the Constitution only gives a few powers to the Federal government. If it’s not in the Constitution, then the Feds have no power to do it. Ergo, if the people decide to withdraw the government’s powers “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”. Without government is anarchy, even if it’s short lived.

                    11. That’s as crazy as your claim that the 9th and 10th amendments are anarchy.

                      Have fun convincing voters of that “right to murder”. Good platform, that one.

                      Now your ignorance is the definition of unalienable — as in all unalienable rights are precisely equal.

                      I don’t have the right to murder. An expectant mother has no right to murder. The “unviable” human inside her has no right to murder. The rights all look equal to me.

                      This is junior high stuff.

                      At a government school, I suppose. Thankfully, I went somewhere I was actually taught to think critically rather than blindly accept Supreme Court rulings as being correct.

                    12. STILL refuses!

                      That’s as crazy as your claim that the 9th and 10th amendments are anarchy.

                      Have fun convincing voters of that “right to murder”.

                      (yawn) Another diversion.

                      Now your ignorance is the definition of unalienable — as in all unalienable rights are precisely equal.

                      An expectant mother has no right to murder. The “unviable” human inside her has no right to murder. The rights all look equal to me.

                      (laughing) That’s only one right. The principle means that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are co-equal to each other, and to all other fundamental rights. PLEASE keep fucking up!

                      This is junior high stuff.

                      Thankfully, I went somewhere I was actually taught to think critically

                      (snicker)Like equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights? And your wacky first answer

                      BEHOLD the mind of an extreme social conservative!

                      rather than blindly accept Supreme Court rulings as being correct.

                      They also lie. The self-righteous authoritarians.

                      SEVENTH REQUEST: Why do you deny that all unalienable rights are co-equal, by definition?

                      (If we combine an extreme socon with an anarchist, we get hate-spewing authoritarian. Keep showing HOW wacky. I’ve had over 300 readers of my blog visit links to specific comments here! )

                    13. No-one has the right to murder.

                      (lol) That’s as crazy as your claim that the 9th and 10th amendments are anarchy.

                      Another diversion.

                      Hey, you’re the one who thinks that people have the right to murder, as evidenced by your own quote above…

                      Like equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights?

                      Yes. Like the right to do everything except initiate force against other live humans. Wow, that’s really quite simple. Occam’s razor.

                      rather than blindly accept Supreme Court rulings as being correct.

                      They also lie. The self-righteous authoritarians.

                      Then why do you continue to cite Roe v. Wade as “settled law” and expect us to hold to it blindly? How in the heck is that logically consistent?

                      Why do you deny that all unalienable rights are co-equal, by definition?

                      I don’t. You have the right to do anything other than initiate force against another living human. Everyone has this right. Equal and unalienable (and simple).

                      I’ve had over 300 readers of my blog…

                      I’m not calling you a liar here, but if that’s true, then that’s the scariest statistic I’ve ever seen.

                    14. That’s as crazy as your claim that the 9th and 10th amendments are anarchy.

                      Have fun convincing voters of that “right to murder”.

                      (LOL) ANOTHER diversion! (and lie)

                      Now your ignorance is the definition of unalienable — as in all unalienable rights are precisely equal.

                      An expectant mother has no right to murder. The “unviable” human inside her has no right to murder. The rights all look equal to me.

                      (laughing) I say ignorant. He again proves it! The founding principle, taught in junior high: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are co-equal to each other.

                      PLEASE keep fucking up!

                      Eighth request Why do you deny that all unalienable rights are co-equal, by definition?

                      This is junior high stuff.

                      I went somewhere I was actually taught to think critically

                      (snicker)Like equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights? Your wacky first answer And THIS:
                      The legitimate powers that government has come from the consent of the governed. Withdraw that consent and you have anarchy. Withdraw that consent and you have anarchy. The 9th amendment recognizes the right of the people to do so at will

                      BEHOLD the mind of an extreme social conservative

                      rather than blindly accept Supreme Court rulings as being correct.

                      They also lie, on top of all the diversions. The militant self-righteous.

                    15. (This post is mostly a repeat of the one above it so I’m only going to respond to the new nonsense, not the old nonsense.)

                      The founding principle, taught in junior high: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are co-equal to each other.

                      So if my pursuit of happiness brings me to the point that it would make me happy to shoot someone in the head, those “rights” are equal? And you think the purpose of law (or the court) is to decide what to do when “rights come into conflict”, then what happens when they rule I can shoot that person in the head (perhaps because there’s a compelling government interest to allow me to do so)?

                      Or, maybe, everyone has just the one right, the right to do everything other than initiate force against other living humans. I mean, that’s just so simple it just couldn’t be right, right?

                    16. Here’s what it says, chump.

                      If you can remember (and I’m not sure you can) I quoted it first.

                      (yawn) STILL evading your wacky claim:
                      The legitimate powers that government has come from the consent of the governed. Withdraw that consent and you have anarchy. Withdraw that consent and you have anarchy. The 9th amendment recognizes the right of the people to do so at will.

                      That right is in the Preamble.
                      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

                      And Declaration.

                      Here’s the 9th
                      “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or
                      disparage others retained by the people.”

                      Where do you see the “guarantee” you claim. Be specific No more evasions.

                      The purpose was protect unenumerated rights, and place Jefferson’s unalienable rights into the Constitution

                      Such as the right to property, ergo the right to not have that property stolen by government.

                      (snicker) that’s an enumerated right. Fourth and Fifth Amendments, ergo still a dumbfuck. The 9th protects Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and all the other fundamental rights from thugs like you.

                      (yawn)

                    17. Where do you see the “guarantee” you claim.

                      You are the only one on this site to use the word “guarantee”. Ctrl-f is your friend.

                      that’s an enumerated right.

                      Apparently not, because the Supreme Court thinks that Eminent domain means the government can steal your land.

                      The 9th protects Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and all the other fundamental rights from thugs like you.

                      I don’t send men with guns after people who have not initiated violence and I certainly don’t celebrate it. You do. Who is the thug, again?

                    18. More diversion lies and stupidity!

                      The purpose of the 9th amendment is to protect unenumerated rights

                      such as the right to property, ergo the right to not have that property stolen by government.

                      (snicker) that’s an enumerated right. 4th and 5th Amendments, ergo a dumbfuck.
                      Apparently not, because the Supreme Court thinks that Eminent domain means the government can steal your land.

                      (laughing )
                      1 )Enumerated means listed in the Constitution, not rulings, ergo a dumbfuck.
                      2)Eminent domain is in the 5th Amendment I cited ? PROTECTING not denying, property rights, ergo, a dumbfuck ? “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.’

                      forbidding your fascist denial of a woman’s unalienable rights

                      No-one has the right to murder.

                      5th request: Why do you reject a woman’s unalienable right to liberty ? since all unalienable rights are equal ? by definitio, dumbfuck

                      6th request: Where do you find your wacky claim:
                      “the legitimate powers that government has come from the consent of the governed. Withdraw that consent and you have anarchy. The 9th amendment recognizes the right of the people to do so at will.

                      IN THE 9TH AMENDMENT;
                      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

                    19. Enumerated means listed in the Constitution, not rulings

                      Regardless, if the Supreme Court gets to define what the Constitution says (as you believe), then the 4th and 5th are meaningless. In fact, only the 5th even mentions the word “property”, and that the government can take it as long as they compensate you. There is no unalienable right to property here (not if the government can take it from you).

                      Eminent domain is in the 5th Amendment I cited ? PROTECTING not denying, property rights

                      You actually believe that Eminent domain protects property rights? OK, very well. Again, the definitions of words and you never really did get along…

                      Why do you reject a woman’s unalienable right to liberty

                      I don’t. No-one has the right to murder. I have shown that not having the right to murder is completely consistent with “equal” rights because no-one has it.

                      Where do you find your wacky claim…

                      The 9th amendment combined with the 3rd sentence of the Declaration of Independence (that I quoted earlier).

                  2. Ace, I’ve been baited by this troll before. If you feel like tilting at windmills then go ahead and engage. However, if you want civil discourse then just ignore his/her thread.
                    As far as An-Cap, it took me years to finally let go of the dogma that the state is a necessary evil. I was so indoctrinated by the state that I could hardly imagine a place where it was not sovereign. Funny thing is now that I have let go, I realize more than ever the reality that An-Cap is a far off reality for a political system, for the same reasons it was so difficult for me to grasp. Others have an even further journey to get to the logical and righteous conclusion that a stateless (non-coercive) society is most efficient and just. So now I’m less inclined to “burn it all down”, and much more tactical about aggregating small victories. Educating a neighbor, suggesting a book to a friend, finding common ground with a D or R. This election cycle is really exciting because the status quo seems to be destroying itself, leaving space for a possible liberty candidate.

                    1. If you feel like tilting at windmills then go ahead and engage.

                      I don’t want the uninitiated reader to think that Hihn wins arguments by commenting last. Thankfully, he doesn’t have that long an attention span and resorts to childish noises and becomes the boy who cried “aggression” quite quickly. Then any uninitiated reader will realize how ridiculous he is and also ignore him. The more he responds, the less people listen to him.

                    2. The more he responds, the less people listen to him.

                      Tell us again how the 9th Amendment “proves” anarchy!
                      And how the government has delegated powers when means government has no power, ergo anarchy.

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_6040629

                    3. Read my above post.

                    4. generalisimo14|
                      Ace, I’ve been baited by this troll before

                      Who exposed you as a TOTAL dumbfuck here:

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_6040530

                      For the record, not all An-Caps are drooling morons. But An-Caps seem to attract them/

                    5. (lol) If you can’t say how to replace them, you’re as totally useless as Rothbard.
                      One more time …

                      You don’t understand much about libertarianism if you think “repeal” or “elimination” = “replace with yet another piece of legislation.” The whole point is that there is no legislation/law that’s a better replacement. The ideal is no law, period.

                    6. RenaD: One more braindead dumbfuck!!!

                      (lol) If you can’t say how to replace them, you’re as totally useless as Rothbard.

                      You don’t understand much about libertarianism if you think “repeal” or “elimination” = “replace with yet another piece of legislation.”

                      Not what I said, liar. You quote my words then lie about them … in public. So are you, a liar or a psycho?

                      The whole point is that there is no legislation/law that’s a better replacement. The ideal is no law, period.

                      You also misfuckingly assume libertarianism = anarchism (a small minority).
                      And that. somehow, a free society can be created without ever electing anybody! BUT HOW CAN YOU WIN A MILITARY COUP WITH ONLY 5% OF THE POPULATION. (omg)
                      You have a bunch of memorized slogans, with no capacity for thinking, no better than a prog. So you’re stuck with lying about my words that you quoted!!!!
                      This is why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians! (Per Cato survey)

                      Here’s the web archive of my published libertarian writing .. going back a quarter century, chump.

                      http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

                      (My tone and boldface in response to mindless lying and aggression by a typical ignorant and authoritarian thug)

                      (walks away laughing)

                    7. Hihn, I really do try to understand your arguments and take you seriously, but I’m confounded most of the time. Couple that with your abrasive tone and insulting posts, and I wonder if you just like being disliked. Go ahead and sling some more insults about how much of a total dumbfuck I am. Any way, enjoy your Friday and weekend. I would love to hear your take on the second half of L debate tonight.

                    8. Couple that with your abrasive tone and insulting posts,

                      You lied … about my words WHICH YOU QUOTED . Here is is again, chump

                      ——-

                      lol) If you can’t say how to replace them, you’re as totally useless as Rothbard.

                      You don’t understand much about libertarianism if you think “repeal” or “elimination” = “replace with yet another piece of legislation.”

                      Not what I said, liar. You quote my words then lie about them … in public. So are you, a liar or a psycho?

                      The whole point is that there is no legislation/law that’s a better replacement. The ideal is no law, period.

                      You also misfuckingly assume libertarianism = anarchism (a small minority).
                      And that. somehow, a free society can be created without ever electing anybody! BUT HOW CAN YOU WIN A MILITARY COUP WITH ONLY 5% OF THE POPULATION. (omg)

                      Cyber-bullies and liars also throw hissy fits when they’re called out

                    9. not all An-Caps are drooling morons. But An-Caps seem to attract them

                      I know that it’s difficult to give up on your preconceived notions, it sure was difficult for me too.

                      That being said, NAP (“don’t initiate force”) applies to taxation just as it does to other theft. Ergo, government is a violation of NAP. Ergo, being a ‘libertarian” who wants to preserve government is not a logically consistent one.

                      Logical consistency is difficult to attain but easy to keep.

                    10. Dumbfuck persists

                      That being said, NAP (“don’t initiate force”) applies to taxation just as it does to other theft. Ergo, government is a violation of NAP. Ergo, being a ‘libertarian” who wants to preserve government is not a logically consistent one.

                      Voluntary taxation has been a libertarian principle for over 40 years.
                      And you still equate anarchy with libertarianism.
                      Ergo, you’re still a dumbfuck.

                      Tell us again how the 9th and 10th Amendments establish anarchy. (snicker)

                    11. Voluntary taxation has been a libertarian principle for over 40 years.

                      If it’s taxation, it’s not voluntary. Taxation is theft. Now if you want to hire someone to protect you and build your roads, go right ahead. If you try to stop paying taxes, they send men with guns after you (not very libertarian).

                      And you still equate anarchy with libertarianism.

                      It’s not my fault that one of the logical consequences of “don’t initiate force” is that taxation (theft) is precluded. Logical consistency is a wonderful thing.

                      Tell us again how the 9th and 10th Amendments establish anarchy.

                      I already did. You can’t follow simple conclusions of your own “logic”.

                    12. Do slogans replace logical thought? (lol)
                      Has he been doumented as a liar about the 9th Amendment?

                      Voluntary taxation has been a libertarian principle for over 40 years.

                      If it’s taxation, it’s not voluntary.

                      Tell that to Ayn Rand (snicker)

                      Taxation is theft

                      Umm, not if it’s voluntary. And not if it’s accepted by 100% of the people involved. Slogans are for dummies.

                      Tell us again how the 9th and 10th Amendments establish anarchy.

                      I already did.

                      (hahaha) YOU LIED AGAIN, as exposed here

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_6043917

                      I said that the legitimate powers that government has come from the consent of the governed. Withdraw that consent and you have anarchy. The 9th amendment recognizes the right of the people to do so at will.

                      (snicker) Here’s what it says, chump.

                      “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

                      http://bitly.com/1RWEPaE

                      In high school, you’ll learn the purpose was protect unenumerated rights, and place Jefferson’s unalienable rights into the Constitution ? forbidding your fascist denial of a woman’s unalienable rights

                      (flush)

                    13. Thank you Ace_M82, for showing the ignorance and aggression of so many so-called anarchists. The kid’s latest ignorance, voluntary taxation, a libertarian principle since, umm, 1964, over a half-century. (yawn)

                      Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, page 116. “Government Financing in a Free Society”

                      http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html

                      In a fully free society, taxation?or, to be exact, payment for governmental services?would be voluntary. ? The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing?how to determine the best means of applying it in practice?is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law.

                      The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today?since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions.

                      Any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future.

                      What the advocates of a fully free society have to know, at present, is only the principle by which that goal can be achieved.

                      NAP and taxation as theft both, of course, originated with Ayn Rand.

                      Google (“voluntary taxation” libertarian) for many more references

                    14. Thank you Ace_M82, for showing the ignorance and aggression of so many so-called anarchists.

                      Proving you wrong doesn’t take much intelligence nor learning, but even I wouldn’t call it “ignorance”. Also, I can’t “aggress” (initiate force) through a computer.

                      The kid’s latest ignorance, voluntary taxation, a libertarian principle since, umm, 1964, over a half-century.

                      There is no “voluntary” taxation. There is theft (taxation would fall under that) and voluntary exchanges. That you seek to conflate the two shows just how poorly you define words.

                      NAP and taxation as theft both, of course, originated with Ayn Rand.

                      And yet, she was no libertarian. The ARI site even says “Objectivism is not liberal, conservative, or libertarian”. It also appears that Ayn thought property theft was OK as long as westerners took land from the Indians… So by all means, worship her instead of logical consistency. How’s that working for you?

                      (BTW, she also seemed to be a big fan of the state of Israel and thought the Palestinians had no rights. If I remember correctly I don’t think you’d like that too much…)

                    15. The kid’s latest ignorance, voluntary taxation, a libertarian principle since, umm, 1964, over a half-century.

                      There is no “voluntary” taxation. There is theft (taxation would fall under that) and voluntary exchanges. That you seek to conflate the two shows just how poorly you define words.

                      Psycho denies Ayn Rand.

                      Now the bullshit (part one) ….

                      NAP and taxation as theft both, of course, originated with Ayn Rand.

                      And yet, she was no libertarian.

                      She hated anarchists for bastardizing her ideas … like you do regarding both NAP and voluntary taxation.

                      The ARI site even says “Objectivism is not liberal, conservative, or libertarian”.

                      Diversion from your bullshit. REFUSE to address her originating the NAP you cite … and the voluntary taxation which clashes with your memorized slogan.

                      MORE bullshit.

                      So by all means, worship her instead of logical consistency. How’s that working for you?

                      (snicker) All I said is that she originated the terms.
                      How are lying and denial working for YOU?

                      The pattern. Called out on a fuck up. Change the subject. Attack again.
                      Typical.

                    16. Psycho denies Ayn Rand.

                      I deny that she was always right, yes.

                      …like you do regarding both NAP and voluntary taxation.

                      There is no voluntary taxation. Taxation is by force, by definition. Also, Ayn didn’t actually think NAP was always correct, to her it was more a suggestion (hence her position on Palestine and the Indians). So I follow it better than she did.

                      REFUSE to address her originating the NAP you cite

                      Just because someone originated [A] doesn’t mean they practice it best or understand it best.

                      How are lying and denial working for YOU?

                      I don’t lie. You can’t tell the difference between “lies” and “things that prove you wrong”. I would love to take an fRMI of your head… Science could learn so much!

                    17. Dummy alert (again)

                      Also, I can’t “aggress” (initiate force) through a computer.

                      (snicker) EVERY cyber-bully denies the existence of verbal aggression. Guess why!

                      A google search for “verbal aggression” displays over 5 million entries.

                      “Cyber-bullying” gets 22 million

                    18. EVERY cyber-bully denies the existence of verbal aggression. Guess why!

                      See, one of us is defining “aggression” as “initiating force” and one of us is defining “aggression” as “daring to disagree with me”.

                      So yes, the internet is full of “aggression” under that definition. After all, most people disagree with you on something. How “aggressive” of them!

                    19. Has he been doumented as a liar about the 9th Amendment?

                      Hard to lie about it when I quoted it in its entirety before you did.

                      Tell that to Ayn Rand (snicker)

                      Ayn Rand was wrong. Deal with it.

                      Umm, not if it’s voluntary. And not if it’s accepted by 100% of the people involved.

                      If it’s voluntary, it’s not taxation, by definition.

                      BTW, deep-linking to your own posts may be a sign of narcissism.

                      YOU LIED AGAIN

                      I think you may come from a universe where “you lied” means “you proved me wrong”.

                    20. As I just said: Called out on a fuckup. Changes subject. Attacks again.

                      Has he been doumented as a liar about the 9th Amendment?

                      Hard to lie about it when I quoted it in its entirety before you did.

                      Non-responsive. Evasive. And mindless.

                      If it’s taxation, it’s not voluntary.

                      Tell that to Ayn Rand (snicker)

                      Ayn Rand was wrong. Deal with it.

                      Non-responsive Evasive. “Voluntary taxation” has been a libertarian principle for 50 years, and she originated it … but chump never heard of it, so he denies.

                      Umm, not if it’s voluntary. And not if it’s accepted by 100% of the people involved.

                      If it’s voluntary, it’s not taxation, by definition.

                      Typical brainwashed anarchist.
                      If 100% of the people accept the same tax, then …. how is it theft!
                      “Slogans are for dummies” (yawn)

                      BTW, deep-linking to your own posts may be a sign of narcissism.

                      (smirk) It’s called providing documentation of your dumbfuckery. Compared with never documenting anything (gasp)

                    21. Non-responsive. Evasive. And mindless.

                      You called me a liar. I didn’t lie because to do so would be ridiculous immediately after quoting it in its entirety. Speaking of “evasive”, do you have the right to murder or not?

                      “Voluntary taxation” has been a libertarian principle for 50 years

                      You can call a contradiction of terms a “principle” if you like, but it’s still wrong. If it’s actually voluntary, it’s not a tax, its a fee for services, maybe. If there could be a tax that were voluntary, I would have no problem with it.

                      but chump never heard of it

                      Oh, I’ve heard of it. It’s still wrong. It’s like a positive right, it’s a contradiction of terms.

                      If 100% of the people accept the same tax…

                      If 100% of people accept it, it’s not a tax. If it’s so “voluntary”, then you’d have no need to send armed thugs to “collect” it, right? Good luck with that.

                      It’s called providing documentation of your dumbfuckery.

                      It’s called proof of narcissism and other mental conditions I’m too kind to point out here.

                      Compared with never documenting anything

                      Thus far I’ve cited the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the ARI site. You’ve deep-linked to your own posts. Good job!

    3. What powers are delegated to state governments, and by whom? The states formed the federal government, not the other way around. The people of each state formed their state’s government, and any state’s policies should meet their approval.

      1. The states formed the federal government, not the other way around.

        Well, that was useless. When you get to high school you’ll learn that when the states ratified the Constitution, they agreed to abide by it!!

        The people of each state formed their state’s government, and any state’s policies should meet their approval.

        Typical Paulista Cult nonsense. This ain’t a democracy, Sparky. Do you even know that we have a Constitution? And what it guarantees? And why?

    4. The problem with the abortion issue is the question: “When does life begin?”

      If it’s at conception, then every abortion is a murder and even libertarians would say the murder is aggression against an individual person and unacceptable.

      Conversely, if life begins at birth – abort away! It’s just unwanted tissue!

      What about a 3d trimester baby, one that could be delivered and with minimal medical care, could live? Is it different from the clump of a few hundred cells that gets flushed away with the application of a “morning after” pill?

      Let’s take it a step further – suppose you’re involved in an accident that causes a woman to miscarry. Should you be charged with manslaughter if the baby is stillborn? What if the woman delivers a live baby at the accident scene, but the baby dies of injuries you inflicted? If it’s twins and one dies, and the other has injuries that require a lifetime of medical care – are you liable for one? Both? Neither? Civilly? Criminally?

      The reason the issue is so twisted is because nobody can agree on the fundamentals. Add the emotional aspect of a beaming baby and religious superstitions versus the abstract concepts of freedom and autonomy and the argument gets even more bizarre.

      1. The problem with the abortion issue is the question: “When does life begin?”

        Yes. It’s totally irrelevant. If live begins at conception, it began at conception for the pregnant woman. And her unalienable right to Liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life.

        The definition of unalienable is ignored by both extremes, pro-life and pro-choice. One denies the woman’s unalienable rights and the other denies the fetal child’s.

  2. W/o RTFA, GayJay thinks Jew-bakers should be forced to bake Nazi wedding cakes. This disqualifies him for the LP nomination even more than his support for a new federal consumption tax. John McAfee 2016.

    This is fucking hilarious. Millennials are the whiniest, most entitled special snowflakes in the history of the human species. Yet there is a tiny thread of truth in there. Of course they’re too busy diddling with their smartphones and whining about how much they owe on their liberal arts degree student loans to get it.

    1. According to someone else’s definition I’m a Millennial and I would be the first to say fuck every other Millennial. A dichotomy if you will. Or perhaps cognitive dissonance.

      P.S. I didn’t study liberal arts.

    2. I find your generalization misguided and unconstructive.

      1. “Misguided and unnconstructive” is par for the course around here.

    3. This disqualifies him for the LP nomination even more than his support for a new federal consumption tax

      Granted that a flat tax on anything — income or consumption — is mind-fucking stupid. But how does replacing the income tax with a consumption tax disqualify Gary from the LP nomination? .. when McAfee supports the equally stupid flat tax, even claims the Income Tax is unconstitutional, because Lincoln’s income tax was declared unconstitutional (OMG)

      The Civil War tax was temporary, and repealed after the war (not declared unconstitutional). Umm, McAfee’s flat tax is authorized by the same 16th Amendment he claims does not exist. Fucking the minds of SOME libertarians and conservatives (the goobers) has never been difficult. (lol)

      (The rich subsidize over 40% of the entire share of income taxes for the core middle class, $40-100k. The average income tax rate for Obama’s $50,000 school teacher is 8%. For millionaires and billionaires, average 27%. Do the math. duh)

  3. There was a time when Libertarian candidates were controversial because of their *libertarian* positions being in advance of the public.

    Now we have a Libertarian candidate who’s going to be controversial because, on the nazi cake issue, the public is more libertarian than he is.

    At least I hope the public is more libertarian than he is.

    1. His answer to that question was very disappointing.

    2. At least I hope the public is more libertarian than he is.

      Don’t bet on it. I think the general public is A-OK with forcing Christian bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings. Maybe not with forcing Jewish bakers to bake Nazi wedding cakes, but that’s only because “Nazi’s are gross” and that’s about as deep as most people are willing to think about these issues. Which side is “ickier” to them.

      Therein lies one of the main problems with identity politics.

      1. At least I hope the public is more libertarian than he is.

        Don’t bet on it.

        Umm, 59% of Americans would self-define as libertarian (fiscally conservative and socially liberal) … and 91% if THEM reject the libertarian brand. (Cato survey conducted by Zogby Polling)
        The Paulista Cult is likely a major cause of that, with their States Rights bigotry, extreme social conservatism and rejection of Constitutional rights. All in line with George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox and the KKK.

  4. It’s a shame the candidate’s debate forum isn’t open to all the candidates – where’s the protest that Almanian isn’t being allowed to be heard? With Sanders doing so well on the D side and Trump on the R, it’s clear that the electorate has decided the normal doses of Stupid and Evil are just not getting the job done and are crying out for some stronger medicine. I believe nobody can deliver a stricter adherence to doctrinaire militant stronger medicine than one of our own. Almanian/Agile 2016!

    1. The Mississippi debate format was that all who cared to participate were allowed to make a 2 minute pitch. Then all participants voted on those who should be o the state for the debate. Top 5 were on stage.

  5. I’ve never been an enormous fan of Gary Johnson anyway, but seriously? How exactly are you for limiting state power when you’re on the record as compelling people to engage in commerce against their will?

    1. Johnson disappointed me in his answers as did Peterson eventually with his pro-life position. I selected McAfee as the debate winner … consistent and good personality on the whole.

      1. Yeah, but the probably having murdered his next door neighbor thing would likely come up if he were a real candidate.

      2. I like Petersen, he is my horse in this race, but on this point his position is questionable to me. He states that he wants to “first” try all non-coercive means to accomplish the pro-life position, not shutting the door on state coercion. BOOOOOOO! I’m wondering if the pandering to a statist R constituency means that he must keep the gun in his pocket to satisfy the slavers. But to counter my own criticism, he is decidedly practical in his policy. The all or nothing, or pure ideological liberty position, is unworkable in terms of our current political reality. We need to learn from our enemies and accept incrementalism (i.e. Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”); taking gains wherever we find them. This may make libertarians queezy, as we have always had the “privilege” of irrelevance. This allows us to remain pure and not dilute our position with practical compromises.

      3. so a libertarian can’t be pro life thats not very libertarian of you.

        1. No. I’m against the use of coercion to attain this goal. I am decidedly pro-life.

        2. In the final analysis , no. Because it requires believing that a pregnant women doesn’t own her own body.

          I support the right of the women to remove the fetus from her body… at this point in time, that will amount to the killing of the baby,

          Pro-lifers have yet to distinguish between killing a baby and murdering it.

          1. Umm, the woman’s right to Liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child’s right to Life … per the definition of unalienable! (duh)

            In high school we were taught the concept of conflicting or competing rights
            a) No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.
            b) Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

            No fundamental rights are absolute, because they can conflict with each other. And when rights are in conflict, ONLY the Judiciary is empowered to “draw the line” (like the tip of my nose) that best defends BOTH conflicting rights. Despite the psychotic bullshit, the court does not MAKE law, it JUDGES law against the Constitution. It’s called Balance of Powers. Look it up.

            This elementary principle ENRAGES authoritarians on both extremes of the issue. Extreme pro-lifers TOTALLY reject the woman’s unalienable rights Extreme pro-choicers TOTALLY reject the fetal child’s Thus, both authoritarians.

            1. No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

              What if the theatre is on fire?

              1. What if the theater is on fire?

                Umm, if it’s a free speech right then you could yell fire either way. Do you know what a “right” is?

                1. I’m pretty sure I do, but I’m trying to work out what you think a “right” is. You wrote:

                  In high school we were taught the concept of conflicting or competing rights
                  a) No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

                  But it sounds like you concede that people do have a right, under certain circumstances, to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, despite your earlier misstatement. That’s good.

                  1. What if the theater is on fire?

                    it’s a free speech right then you could yell fire either way. Do you know what a “right” is?

                    I’m pretty sure I do

                    Obviously not.

                    You wrote:
                    In high school we were taught the concept of conflicting or competing rights
                    a) No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

                    But it sounds like you concede that people do have a right, under certain circumstances, to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, despite your earlier misstatement.

                    Only if it’s on fire! Thus your confusion on rights. The context:

                    jIn high school we were taught the concept of conflicting or competing rights
                    a) No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.
                    b) Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

                    No fundamental rights are absolute, because they can conflict with each other. And when rights are in conflict, ONLY the Judiciary is empowered to “draw the line” (like the tip of my nose) that best defends BOTH conflicting rights. Despite the psychotic bullshit, the court does not MAKE law, it JUDGES law against the Constitution. It’s called Balance of Powers. Look it up.

                    This elementary principle ENRAGES authoritarians on both extremes of the issue. Extreme pro-lifers TOTALLY reject the woman’s unalienable rights Extreme pro-choicers TOTALLY reject the fetal child’s Thus, both authoritarians.

                    Which authoritarian are you?

                    1. Only if it’s on fire! Thus your confusion on rights

                      My confusion is actually on what you meant when you said “No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.” Because you conceded that there IS a free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. So you just didn’t write clearly in your original post. There’s no need to get mad, and I appreciate your efforts to clarify. It sounds like what you meant was that there is no right to yell fire in a crowded theatre unless it’s on fire.

                      Of course, that’s wrong, too.

                      If a person was performing “Breaker Morant” to a crowded house, and Breaker told those British bastards to shoot straight, the British commander would have a free speech right to yell “FIRE!” and then the curtain would come down and you’d still be wrong. Because people have a right to yell fire in a crowded theatre almost always, except maybe if they are “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” And even that hypothetical might just be a thin veneer covering a vacuous defence of war-time censorship commonly used by ignorant people to argue for greater limitations on our rights. People like you.

                      If you’re still confused, Ken White at Popehat has written a whole article about how wrong you are.

    2. they opened a business that accepts walk in customers as a standard practice. they already made the decision of how they were going to trade their possessions with the general public. i, personally, don’t see it as coercion to expect them to stick to that decision. for non-storefront businesses, i agree… but, with the exception of one photographer (who i think should have the right to deny service because it required participation) i think every case has been a walk in store, where the business was selling standardized products, and did not require any endorsement or participation in the marriage. what if it was a gas station, and the gay couple is on empty… would that count as a hardship to them over the business? what if it is a garbage service where there are two providers, but the second one charges twice as much…. would that count as hardship? when we get to the utilities, i hope you can at least agree that service can’t be denied when it is the only option available.

      how exactly are you expecting to be taken seriously if you take a hard stand on bringing back Jim Crow laws? (as long as they can buy it somewhere else, it doesn’t count as a hardship.) and why is this an issue worth digging in on? you really want to add more laws to the books…. that you know will have unintended consequences….. because of something that has happened about 5 times? (and will decline in frequency as gay marriage becomes more “normal”)

      1. Gay bars and B&Bs; reject straight people from time to time. What if a business puts up a placard saying “no gays” or “Christian families only”? How is that different from its just being known you are only open to straights or Christians?

  6. You would have thought three Libertarian candidates could have just answered, “No” to the question. Mr. Stossel, do you have any ‘more Libertarian’ candidates you can interview?

  7. John Stossel didn’t mention ANYWHERE, strangely enough, that discrimination is a civil right regardless of one’s opinion toward it.

    1. Name of the law isn’t always true to the content…

  8. God, really Johnson? How is this not a completely obvious “no, you should not be forced to do business with anyone” answer for anyone claiming to be a libertarian?

    1. Well, unlike the other guys on stage, Johnson actually ran a state. Former governors tend, as a class of politician, to be more comfortable with compromise because it’s often necessary to get things done.

      Perfect enemy of the good and all that jazz.

      1. Which is why they’re the ONLY ones who ever achieve ANYTHING.
        But it’s not compromise. Nobody storms the barricades so they can compromise. In practice it’s win-win. Two sides negotiate a solution which includes a victory for each.

        Even Ayn Rand knew that no major victories for liberty were possible without first changing the culture … which drives libertarian purists and zealots insane. since the advocate a benevolent dictatorship run by themselves. ,

        1. Your punctuation is weird.

          1. It’s called a typo!.

            1. I’m beginning to think it’s called typorhea.

              1. The period is right next to the comma on the keyboard!

        2. Other than your punctuation, I agree with you.

          1. And, logic being logic, one need not know what Rand said on the issue. And how “voluntary taxation” — the concept at the time — would be the very last step, not the first step, on the path to a free society.
            She understood the dipwad wing of libertarianism.

    2. Because the next question would be, “Should a restaurant be able to refuse to serve blacks?” Say goodbye to breaking 1% if the LP candidate says, “Yes.”

  9. Excellent debate. I wish it had gone longer! My very first foray into libertarianism, and I’m really liking what I’m finding so far.

    1. I wish it had gone longer!

      It’s a two parter, the second part will be this Friday, so wish granted.

    2. Welcome!

      Please stick around and continue to forage.

    3. Welcome, the Cool Aid is delicious. Try some.

      1. It’s Flavor Aid. We’re too cheap for Cool Aid.

        Although it is hand mixed by Cambodian slave orphans.

        1. …and only available as big gulps.

          The orphans were homeless anyway.

        2. It’s Grape Drink. GRAPE DRANK!

  10. I watched the debate it was good and a far cry from the crap we’ve been getting from the D’s and R’s debates. any of those three will do a better job as president than the D’s and R’s

  11. The president of the United States should not be setting wedding cake policy. Ask the candidates the same questions they ask at the real debates.

    1. There’s already federal wedding cake policy dating back to 1964. The question is fair game.

  12. I think it’s a very real probability that Gary is seeing a chance to maybe break double digits for a libertarian candidate and is trying his best to attract anyone with even a sliver of libertarian in them to actually vote 3rd party. It could, although probably won’t, lend a little more legitimacy to the party in general. A lot of maybes and probably nots, I know.

    At this point it’s really a different question than ‘is this Libertarian someone I agree with’ and more ‘who can stop Hillary/Trump’ for me. If Cruz gets the R nomination I’ll probably vote for him since there’s at least a ballpark chance at stopping Hillary. If it’s Trump, well it doesn’t really matter who is on the Libertarian ticket I’m voting for that person.

    In a by-gone age of slightly more rational behavior with slightly more rational candidates I would have happily voted (L) but that day is not this day.

    1. If Gary had a comprehensive and credible platform, he could win.
      But he seems stuck with Cato’s bullshit, flat taxes and other tribal zaniness.

  13. I don’t know that there is a candidate that is purely libertarian up and down the menu of issues – Gary has his beliefs about the bakers, Petersen is pro-life, and McAfee likes how China and Russia police their internets. But I would gladly choose any one of these three over the other mainstream candidates. The clincher is getting them into the main debates this fall.

  14. I liked McAfee way more than I expected to considering he may be insane.

  15. “If we discriminate on the basis of religion,” said Johnson, “you’re going to find a whole class of people discriminated against. … So it’s harm to others.”

    Okay, let’s switch this out. Say we’re talking about gender, how would Johnson feel about barbers who only cut men’s hair? Or women-only gyms?

  16. Petersen was quick to add that he would never buy anything from a shop that refused to serve gays. “I would stand outside these people’s store and I would encourage a boycott.”

    I could never get this counter-argument. I mean, that’s all well and good that you are going to take the time out of your busy day to protest some stranger’s store. But you have to realize that the vast vast majority of people who aren’t affected by the discrimination won’t do that and will ignore your protest: they’re in a hurry, they don’t want to make a detour to go somewhere else, they REALLY love the way the bigot puts together his corned beef sandwiches, etc.

  17. “Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?”
    Ah yes, the Nazi question. Let’s pull out a class of people that aren’t actually protected under non-discrimination law anywhere, and treat it as a serious proposition.

    How about asking “Should a Christian baker be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding? A Muslim wedding? A wedding between a black man and a white woman?”

    Jumping straight to Nazi’s isn’t going to give a useful answer in America. You want to provide clarity on the issue, then ask about the cases people are more likely to disagree on.

    1. Should a black baker be forced to make a “flaming cross” cake for a KKK B-day party at Chuck-e-cheese?

      1. Jumping straight to the KKK is going to give comparably useless answers.

        Face it, if your choice is “no non-discrimination law at all” or “Jewish bakers forced to work for Nazis”, then you’re not interested in a discussion, you’re interested in a rant. And you’re also demonstrating that you don’t actually understand the limits and scope of current non-discrimination law.

        1. What about a Palestinian baker making a Zionist cake? What about a mainstream Mormon denying a cake for a polygamist Mormon wedding? What about a Cuban exile baker making a Fidel Castro cake? Private discrimination is a right. You shouldn’t be able to force somebody to provide a non-essential good to anyone. Jim Crow laws were different in that it was the government itself mandating the segregation so it was the government’s duty to fix it.

          1. Strike “non-essential” and we agree. My property is mine, and as long as I do not aggress upon you, leave me to do as I will.

  18. ??Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    +_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.path40.com

  19. Great stuff, John, as usual. Please keep up the good work.

  20. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  21. a cake is not a necessity of life..nobody is refusing, food clothing or shelter..the 9th amendment is clear, it protects a store owner as well…why would anybody (want) to do business with somebody that dont like you?..

  22. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.ReportMax90.com

  23. In the first debate McAfee stood out. You can point out his flaws but at least he is the only candidate that doesn’t think he knows what is best for you

  24. Want to earn from home by working basic work using your laptop for 2 to 4 h on daily basis, get paid 62 bucks fifty-eight minute ZA and get a paycheck every week and choose yourself your working time?Its original site…BNH109

    http://www.payability70.com

  25. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  26. uptil I looked at the bank draft saying $8885 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like they say truly taking home money in there spare time at their laptop. . there great aunt haz done this less than 17 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there home and bourt a great Renault 4 . see

    Copy This Link inYour Browser

    http://www.MaxPost30.com

  27. uptil I looked at the bank draft saying $8885 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like they say truly taking home money in there spare time at their laptop. . there great aunt haz done this less than 17 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there home and bourt a great Renault 4 . see

    Copy This Link inYour Browser

    http://www.MaxPost30.com

  28. So would Donald Trump be more likely to leave me free to run a bar or restaurant or bed and breakfast or medical practice or retirement community that only allowed gay customers than Gary Johnson would be?

    http://www.redstate.com/diary/…..sociation/

  29. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  30. my step-mum just bought a new cream Toyota Highlander only from working off a pc… browse around this website

    ??????www.paypost50.com

  31. til I saw the draft which was of $6881 , I didnt believe that my mother in law had been realy taking home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has done this 4 only twelve months and at present took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Subaru Impreza . Learn More ….

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  32. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  33. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  34. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  35. my step-mum just bought a new cream Toyota Highlander only from working off a pc… browse around this website

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax90.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.