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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
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.
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.
I find your generalization misguided and unconstructive.
"Misguided and unnconstructive" is par for the course around here.
Can we mix n match?
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.
His answer to that question was very disappointing.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
Yeah, but the probably having murdered his next door neighbor thing would likely come up if he were a real candidate.
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.
so a libertarian can't be pro life thats not very libertarian of you.
No. I'm against the use of coercion to attain this goal. I am decidedly pro-life.
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.
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")
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?
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?
John Stossel didn't mention ANYWHERE, strangely enough, that discrimination is a civil right regardless of one's opinion toward it.
Name of the law isn't always true to the content...
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?
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.
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."
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.
I wish it had gone longer!
It's a two parter, the second part will be this Friday, so wish granted.
Welcome!
Please stick around and continue to forage.
Welcome, the Cool Aid is delicious. Try some.
It's Flavor Aid. We're too cheap for Cool Aid.
Although it is hand mixed by Cambodian slave orphans.
...and only available as big gulps.
The orphans were homeless anyway.
It's Grape Drink. GRAPE DRANK!
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
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.
There's already federal wedding cake policy dating back to 1964. The question is fair game.
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.
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.
I liked McAfee way more than I expected to considering he may be insane.
"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?
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.
"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.
Should a black baker be forced to make a "flaming cross" cake for a KKK B-day party at Chuck-e-cheese?
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.
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.
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.
??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
Here it is online:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iib0nyobUQM
Great stuff, John, as usual. Please keep up the good work.
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
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?..
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
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
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
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
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
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
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/
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
my step-mum just bought a new cream Toyota Highlander only from working off a pc... browse around this website
??????www.paypost50.com
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
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
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
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
my step-mum just bought a new cream Toyota Highlander only from working off a pc... browse around this website
?????? http://www.Reportmax90.com
Cool story bro.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Any liberty is a small victory for us. As long as anyone is free to do anything, we have something.
I showed how there was something, ergo, you are committing the Non Sequitur fallacy.
Are you serious?
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)
No, it wasn't.
There is no government in anarchy, so no, it isn't.
Yes, it is. The issue is whether or not the Supreme Court gets to define what the Constitution says, logic and definitions be damned.
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.
The 10th doesn't address anything other than that the states or the people hold all other authority.
I know what the Constitution says. It doesn't say that those "other persons" aren't citizens and have no rights.
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
Word for word? No. Is that what you're arguing? Yes. To be fair, you believe that abortion after "viability" is unConstitutional.
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.
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.
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.
Showing you that you are wrong isn't bullying.
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.
Take the plank out of your eye and all that...
I've never even met another An-Cap in my life. I've certainly never memorized any slogan.
I strive for logical consistency above being proven "right". What do you seek?
You have no idea what words mean.
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.
What if the theatre is on fire?
Your punctuation is weird.
Other than your punctuation, I agree with you.
(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.
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.
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.
This thread = Hihndenberg
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.
Sure, call it that if you like. It does prevent taxation, however.
Yes, but few claim that it is good like they do now when government does it.
"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.
Read my above post.
I'm pretty sure I do, but I'm trying to work out what you think a "right" is. You wrote:
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.
I'm beginning to think it's called typorhea.
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).
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.
I already did. You can't follow simple conclusions of your own "logic".
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.
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.
Perhaps you should get a checkup. That doesn't sound good.
If you can remember (and I'm not sure you can) I quoted it first.
Such as the right to property, ergo the right to not have that property stolen by government.
No-one has the right to murder.
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.
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.
Hard to lie about it when I quoted it in its entirety before you did.
Ayn Rand was wrong. Deal with it.
If it's voluntary, it's not taxation, by definition.
BTW, deep-linking to your own posts may be a sign of narcissism.
I think you may come from a universe where "you lied" means "you proved me wrong".
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.
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.
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...)
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.
Have fun convincing voters of that "right to murder". Good platform, that one.
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.
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.
You are the only one on this site to use the word "guarantee". Ctrl-f is your friend.
Apparently not, because the Supreme Court thinks that Eminent domain means the government can steal your land.
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?
The 9th amendment, brought to its only logical end, leads us inexorably to no other conclusion.
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.
I deny that she was always right, yes.
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.
Just because someone originated [A] doesn't mean they practice it best or understand it best.
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!
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?
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.
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 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 proof of narcissism and other mental conditions I'm too kind to point out here.
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!
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).
You actually believe that Eminent domain protects property rights? OK, very well. Again, the definitions of words and you never really did get along...
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.
The 9th amendment combined with the 3rd sentence of the Declaration of Independence (that I quoted earlier).
Hey, you're the one who thinks that people have the right to murder, as evidenced by your own quote above...
Yes. Like the right to do everything except initiate force against other live humans. Wow, that's really quite simple. Occam's razor.
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?
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'm not calling you a liar here, but if that's true, then that's the scariest statistic I've ever seen.
(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.)
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?
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!