Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Party nomination

[Wilbur Right]

Gary Johnson for their candidate for president. Johnson is the only reasonable choice in the race. H

LMAO. Is Johnson's johnson bigger than Trumps Johnson?

It's da hands boss, look at da hands.

 

[Iceweasel]

He wants government to make better deals, like their governments do. The problem with you hard line purists is you can't see that the issue isn't as simple as trading baseball cards with your neighbor. When products move across borders governments are involved. If it favors one over the other it is not a fair deal.

How he justifies being anti-free trade doesn't contradict that he is anti-free trade. You're incredibly naive that you think ceding more power to government will result in more freedom, that never happens. So if my not wanting to cede my liberty to government means that I'm a "hard line purist" then that works, I'm a hard line purist. And you're a slave. But at least you are one who wants to be a slave.

The naivety is all yours. Nor can you read. You are a purist that isn't getting his way so you want to misrepresent others' views. I didn't call for more government, I want smarter government. Unequal trade deals should be improved on. I'm a slave for that? You're a nut for saying so.

You want government to decide what trade we can and can't do, how is that misrepresenting your view? You're giving government more power.

And using the term "smart" with "government" is, wow, let's go with "unrealistic"

That isn't what I said, nor have I heard Trump say it. Deciding what to trade and how to trade are not synonomous. Sorry that you can't grasp it.

So he's just going to ask nicely and not restrict trade if he doesn't get his way? We know that's not true, he's saying he's going to put punitive tariffs on companies that try to leave and restrict the ability of companies to operate efficiently by moving jobs overseas when it makes economic sense for them to do that.

Clearly you are giving government the power to restrict our choices, and that's exactly what Trump says he will do

And your solution is...? He will need congress to enact any trade deals, taxes, tariffs, etc. Government is already involved in trade, it's a fact. I don't see a better solution from anyone, including you.

 

[kaz]

How he justifies being anti-free trade doesn't contradict that he is anti-free trade. You're incredibly naive that you think ceding more power to government will result in more freedom, that never happens. So if my not wanting to cede my liberty to government means that I'm a "hard line purist" then that works, I'm a hard line purist. And you're a slave. But at least you are one who wants to be a slave.

The naivety is all yours. Nor can you read. You are a purist that isn't getting his way so you want to misrepresent others' views. I didn't call for more government, I want smarter government. Unequal trade deals should be improved on. I'm a slave for that? You're a nut for saying so.

You want government to decide what trade we can and can't do, how is that misrepresenting your view? You're giving government more power.

And using the term "smart" with "government" is, wow, let's go with "unrealistic"

That isn't what I said, nor have I heard Trump say it. Deciding what to trade and how to trade are not synonomous. Sorry that you can't grasp it.

So he's just going to ask nicely and not restrict trade if he doesn't get his way? We know that's not true, he's saying he's going to put punitive tariffs on companies that try to leave and restrict the ability of companies to operate efficiently by moving jobs overseas when it makes economic sense for them to do that.

Clearly you are giving government the power to restrict our choices, and that's exactly what Trump says he will do

And your solution is...? He will need congress to enact any trade deals, taxes, tariffs, etc. Government is already involved in trade, it's a fact. I don't see a better solution from anyone, including you.

The US government should do nothing to restrict my right to trade with foreign governments and businesses, what is unclear about that to you?

 

[Iceweasel]

The naivety is all yours. Nor can you read. You are a purist that isn't getting his way so you want to misrepresent others' views. I didn't call for more government, I want smarter government. Unequal trade deals should be improved on. I'm a slave for that? You're a nut for saying so.

You want government to decide what trade we can and can't do, how is that misrepresenting your view? You're giving government more power.

And using the term "smart" with "government" is, wow, let's go with "unrealistic"

That isn't what I said, nor have I heard Trump say it. Deciding what to trade and how to trade are not synonomous. Sorry that you can't grasp it.

So he's just going to ask nicely and not restrict trade if he doesn't get his way? We know that's not true, he's saying he's going to put punitive tariffs on companies that try to leave and restrict the ability of companies to operate efficiently by moving jobs overseas when it makes economic sense for them to do that.

Clearly you are giving government the power to restrict our choices, and that's exactly what Trump says he will do

And your solution is...? He will need congress to enact any trade deals, taxes, tariffs, etc. Government is already involved in trade, it's a fact. I don't see a better solution from anyone, including you.

The US government should do nothing to restrict my right to trade with foreign governments and businesses, what is unclear about that to you?

When did I say it was unclear? I said it was stupid. The government is involved with my business along with everyone else's. I have to follow rules, regulations, licensing, permits, taxes, etc. That's how it works in reality.

That obviously flies against the principles in your bunker but anarchy isn't for all of us.

 

[kaz]

You want government to decide what trade we can and can't do, how is that misrepresenting your view? You're giving government more power.

And using the term "smart" with "government" is, wow, let's go with "unrealistic"

That isn't what I said, nor have I heard Trump say it. Deciding what to trade and how to trade are not synonomous. Sorry that you can't grasp it.

So he's just going to ask nicely and not restrict trade if he doesn't get his way? We know that's not true, he's saying he's going to put punitive tariffs on companies that try to leave and restrict the ability of companies to operate efficiently by moving jobs overseas when it makes economic sense for them to do that.

Clearly you are giving government the power to restrict our choices, and that's exactly what Trump says he will do

And your solution is...? He will need congress to enact any trade deals, taxes, tariffs, etc. Government is already involved in trade, it's a fact. I don't see a better solution from anyone, including you.

The US government should do nothing to restrict my right to trade with foreign governments and businesses, what is unclear about that to you?

When did I say it was unclear? I said it was stupid. The government is involved with my business along with everyone else's. I have to follow rules, regulations, licensing, permits, taxes, etc. That's how it works in reality.

That obviously flies against the principles in your bunker but anarchy isn't for all of us.

All you're arguing is we have no freedom other than what government decides to give us. My right to life, liberty and PROPERTY according to the Constitution cannot be restricted without due process of law. My business is my property. That's what all those "rules, regulations, licencing, permits" do, restrict my property rights without due process of law.

At least you enjoy being a slave though:

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Maybe he just sees the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy.

Or he prefers compulsion over the free market and slavery over liberty. If he is truly libertarian, he'll leave the businessman alone, choose to personally not do business if that's what his conscience dictates, and leave the government out of the equation.

libertarianism: definition of libertarianism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

Definition of “libertarian” | Collins English Dictionary

"a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc"

Definition of LIBERTARIANISM

"a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government"

Three quite different definitions from three dictionaries.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]"

I think I prefer Wikipedia's version.

What is The Libertarian Party?

"Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility."

It's not that much different to what the Libertarians say themselves.

So, it's about liberty which is about not being controlled by the government or others.

However, I'd say, like any right, there are limitations. Many freedoms conflict with other freedoms, many desires of free will conflict with other desires of free will. Who is there to mediate between the two? Should it be a free for all? No, that's Anarchy.

Libertarianism would be maximum freedom for all, which requires government regulation in order to achieve this.

So, I'd say liberty is the ability to walk down the street, go into any public business and conduct business there. If I am denied conducting business the same as everyone else, then I don't have liberty.
If I am denied service in a shop because I am black, or because I am a woman, or because I am gay, or because I have a deformed part of my body, or if I am denied because of something I was born with, then I am not free, I don't have liberty.

anarchy: definition of anarchy in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Anarchy

"A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:"

This is what some people believe is Libertarianism. It's not.

Libertarians believe in maximizing an individual rights, not allowing individual to have absolute freedom. There is a distinction, a balance , between the rights of the individual and society need for order.

The problem with libertarians is thast they have yet to agree on exactly where that point is. This theoretical problem is a source for infighting between libertarians and anarchist.

Yes, SOME libertarians(and most anarchist) believes that individuals have the right to discriminate. However, allowing people to act upon their personal bias greatly undermines society!

That has been demonstrated time and again, from race to religion to nationality. Society suffers due to slow ability for it to become homogenized due to several distinct groups refusing to 'socialize' with each other.

The bakers refusing to bake a cake is a good example.
Is it the same?
1 Christian bakers and gay couple?
2 Jewish bakers and Nazi Org?
3 KKK members that bake and Black couple?
3a Black baker and KKK member
And a special case
4. Iraqi baker and US vet

Why did I add 4? I had seen something similar to this

In my opinion, they all must bake the cake. The libertarian position appears to suggest otherwise, they all can refuse.

But 4, is telling. It should lead you into deeper questions about this little problem.

What is the purpose of society? When rights conflict, what principles should apply to determine who is right or wrong?

What about the counterexamples where principles produce the wrong results?

They all must have the right to serve whoever the hell they want to serve. For the complaining malcontents: There is another baker who would be happy to take your business. Go to them and shut the hell up.

Another baker may not exist in your locale.

The same can go for hospitals, grocery stores etc.
If the fire house is private, like in Tennessee, then they can just refuse to serve certain individuals in the community.


That's chaotic. It would be better to hide your identity in such a society than participate and help it grow.

Yes, a baker refusing to bake a cake due to who they think the customer is can lead to anarchy.

Is this the "private" fire house you're referring to?

No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

Because that's a city government fire department that charges a fee for people outside of the city, and has nothing to do with being private, obviously. A private fire department would have put out the fire, and charged him more than the yearly fee to do it because they're interested in making a profit. Government let it burn because they have no incentive to make a profit. So what have we learned? That it's government that's chaotic.

 

[Iceweasel]

That isn't what I said, nor have I heard Trump say it. Deciding what to trade and how to trade are not synonomous. Sorry that you can't grasp it.

So he's just going to ask nicely and not restrict trade if he doesn't get his way? We know that's not true, he's saying he's going to put punitive tariffs on companies that try to leave and restrict the ability of companies to operate efficiently by moving jobs overseas when it makes economic sense for them to do that.

Clearly you are giving government the power to restrict our choices, and that's exactly what Trump says he will do

And your solution is...? He will need congress to enact any trade deals, taxes, tariffs, etc. Government is already involved in trade, it's a fact. I don't see a better solution from anyone, including you.

The US government should do nothing to restrict my right to trade with foreign governments and businesses, what is unclear about that to you?

When did I say it was unclear? I said it was stupid. The government is involved with my business along with everyone else's. I have to follow rules, regulations, licensing, permits, taxes, etc. That's how it works in reality.

That obviously flies against the principles in your bunker but anarchy isn't for all of us.

All you're arguing is we have no freedom other than what government decides to give us. My right to life, liberty and PROPERTY according to the Constitution cannot be restricted without due process of law. My business is my property. That's what all those "rules, regulations, licencing, permits" do, restrict my property rights without due process of law.

At least you enjoy being a slave though:

I recognize the necessity of having a government. It's too big and needs to be scaled back but we still need it because people cannot be trusted. Permits mean people don't have a deck installed then the whole family dies as it crashes to the ground. You've taken a very extreme view but you are pissing in the wind and attacking windmills. Only a small minority will ever agree with you. You remind me of the Constitutionalists that argue with cops that they don't even need a driver's license.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Maybe he just sees the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy.

Or he prefers compulsion over the free market and slavery over liberty. If he is truly libertarian, he'll leave the businessman alone, choose to personally not do business if that's what his conscience dictates, and leave the government out of the equation.

libertarianism: definition of libertarianism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

Definition of “libertarian” | Collins English Dictionary

"a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc"

Definition of LIBERTARIANISM

"a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government"

Three quite different definitions from three dictionaries.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]"

I think I prefer Wikipedia's version.

What is The Libertarian Party?

"Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility."

It's not that much different to what the Libertarians say themselves.

So, it's about liberty which is about not being controlled by the government or others.

However, I'd say, like any right, there are limitations. Many freedoms conflict with other freedoms, many desires of free will conflict with other desires of free will. Who is there to mediate between the two? Should it be a free for all? No, that's Anarchy.

Libertarianism would be maximum freedom for all, which requires government regulation in order to achieve this.

So, I'd say liberty is the ability to walk down the street, go into any public business and conduct business there. If I am denied conducting business the same as everyone else, then I don't have liberty.
If I am denied service in a shop because I am black, or because I am a woman, or because I am gay, or because I have a deformed part of my body, or if I am denied because of something I was born with, then I am not free, I don't have liberty.

anarchy: definition of anarchy in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Anarchy

"A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:"

This is what some people believe is Libertarianism. It's not.

Oh, thank goodness. Finally, someone to explain libertarianism to libertarians. We've been lost without you. Your liberty is derived from property rights, that's where the limitations exist. For example, you have the freedom of the press, but it's not an abridgement of your press freedom if the New York Times refuses to publish your op-ed because it's their property. Likewise, if I decide not to serve you in my business it's not an affront to your liberty because it's my property. To force the New York Times to publish your op-ed or to force me to serve you against my will is the affront to liberty, because you're violating property rights. That has nothing to do with anarchy, and everything to do with respecting property rights.

Not really. You can't do whatever you want on your property, can you? Murder is still illegal on your property.

You don't have to set up a business on your property, do you? But if you decided to set up a business, you decide to follow the rules the country sets for businesses.

Now some Libertarians might say that a person should be able to serve whoever they like on their business and not serve others they don't like. However others might say that this takes away the liberty of individuals so isn't libertarianism.

And yet as libertarians I think we're the ones who get to define libertarianism. And no, that doesn't mean you get to murder people on your property, because people have a property right in themselves and murder is an example of a violation of property rights. Me not wanting to serve you a hamburger does not violate your property rights at all, but you forcing me to would violate my property rights. Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property. That's the definition.

Then define Libertarianism so that it isn't Anarchy.

Murder is a violation of property rights? What?

I think you need to define "property rights" first.

 

[kaz]

So he's just going to ask nicely and not restrict trade if he doesn't get his way? We know that's not true, he's saying he's going to put punitive tariffs on companies that try to leave and restrict the ability of companies to operate efficiently by moving jobs overseas when it makes economic sense for them to do that.

Clearly you are giving government the power to restrict our choices, and that's exactly what Trump says he will do

And your solution is...? He will need congress to enact any trade deals, taxes, tariffs, etc. Government is already involved in trade, it's a fact. I don't see a better solution from anyone, including you.

The US government should do nothing to restrict my right to trade with foreign governments and businesses, what is unclear about that to you?

When did I say it was unclear? I said it was stupid. The government is involved with my business along with everyone else's. I have to follow rules, regulations, licensing, permits, taxes, etc. That's how it works in reality.

That obviously flies against the principles in your bunker but anarchy isn't for all of us.

All you're arguing is we have no freedom other than what government decides to give us. My right to life, liberty and PROPERTY according to the Constitution cannot be restricted without due process of law. My business is my property. That's what all those "rules, regulations, licencing, permits" do, restrict my property rights without due process of law.

At least you enjoy being a slave though:

I recognize the necessity of having a government. It's too big and needs to be scaled back but we still need it because people cannot be trusted. Permits mean people don't have a deck installed then the whole family dies as it crashes to the ground. You've taken a very extreme view but you are pissing in the wind and attacking windmills. Only a small minority will ever agree with you. You remind me of the Constitutionalists that argue with cops that they don't even need a driver's license.

My wanting government to not restrict my use of my own property reminds you of people who want shit for free. That's just completely fucking stupid.

I consistently argue AGAINST positive rights pointing out they are an oxymoron. A positive right by definition infringes on someone else's rights. I believe in negative rights only, I oppose positive rights completely. They are entirely different things

 

[kaz]

Or he prefers compulsion over the free market and slavery over liberty. If he is truly libertarian, he'll leave the businessman alone, choose to personally not do business if that's what his conscience dictates, and leave the government out of the equation.

libertarianism: definition of libertarianism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

Definition of “libertarian” | Collins English Dictionary

"a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc"

Definition of LIBERTARIANISM

"a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government"

Three quite different definitions from three dictionaries.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]"

I think I prefer Wikipedia's version.

What is The Libertarian Party?

"Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility."

It's not that much different to what the Libertarians say themselves.

So, it's about liberty which is about not being controlled by the government or others.

However, I'd say, like any right, there are limitations. Many freedoms conflict with other freedoms, many desires of free will conflict with other desires of free will. Who is there to mediate between the two? Should it be a free for all? No, that's Anarchy.

Libertarianism would be maximum freedom for all, which requires government regulation in order to achieve this.

So, I'd say liberty is the ability to walk down the street, go into any public business and conduct business there. If I am denied conducting business the same as everyone else, then I don't have liberty.
If I am denied service in a shop because I am black, or because I am a woman, or because I am gay, or because I have a deformed part of my body, or if I am denied because of something I was born with, then I am not free, I don't have liberty.

anarchy: definition of anarchy in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Anarchy

"A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:"

This is what some people believe is Libertarianism. It's not.

Oh, thank goodness. Finally, someone to explain libertarianism to libertarians. We've been lost without you. Your liberty is derived from property rights, that's where the limitations exist. For example, you have the freedom of the press, but it's not an abridgement of your press freedom if the New York Times refuses to publish your op-ed because it's their property. Likewise, if I decide not to serve you in my business it's not an affront to your liberty because it's my property. To force the New York Times to publish your op-ed or to force me to serve you against my will is the affront to liberty, because you're violating property rights. That has nothing to do with anarchy, and everything to do with respecting property rights.

Not really. You can't do whatever you want on your property, can you? Murder is still illegal on your property.

You don't have to set up a business on your property, do you? But if you decided to set up a business, you decide to follow the rules the country sets for businesses.

Now some Libertarians might say that a person should be able to serve whoever they like on their business and not serve others they don't like. However others might say that this takes away the liberty of individuals so isn't libertarianism.

And yet as libertarians I think we're the ones who get to define libertarianism. And no, that doesn't mean you get to murder people on your property, because people have a property right in themselves and murder is an example of a violation of property rights. Me not wanting to serve you a hamburger does not violate your property rights at all, but you forcing me to would violate my property rights. Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property. That's the definition.

Then define Libertarianism so that it isn't Anarchy.

Murder is a violation of property rights? What?

I think you need to define "property rights" first.

What is a small government libertarian?

 

[kaz]

Gary Johnson takes the un-libertarian position that governments can punish those who exercise their free-will to not participate in something that is against their beliefs. We’re not talking about a physical harm between two parties; we are talking about an exercise of conscience. Here, it is baking a cake specific for a homosexual wedding. It could be any kind of situation where a customer asks a business to engage in something against one’s beliefs. In this light, Austin Petersen rightly makes a comparison about forcing a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi customer. You can see Johnson squirm as his libertarian credentials take a serious hit. Johnson favors punishing who he has a disagreement of conscience over a misguided “progressive” interpretations of discrimination and equality. He ultimately favors empowering the state over the individual. He favors compulsion.

Ignorant nonsense.

Comparing public accommodations laws with a provision for sexual orientation to ‘forcing’ a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi customer fails as a false comparison fallacy; being gay is not the ‘same’ as being a Nazi.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as authorized by the Commerce Clause – libertarian hostility toward Commerce Clause jurisprudence, Takings Clause jurisprudence, and other appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policies illustrates the fact that libertarian dogma is indeed naïve and sophomoric.

How is baking a cake interstate commerce? You may run and hide again like you do every time I ask you that question

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Government is what most threatens our freedom, like forcing citizens to bake each other cakes

How homophobic do you have to be to choose THAT example to represent your broad argument that government is the biggest threat to your freedom?

goddam!

 

[gipper]

Trump 2016 ~ because a vote for this smuck is a vote for Hitlery

Trump, Clinton, who cares? Both are horrendous.

Agreed. I suspect Mrs. BJ is far more horrendous, but I could be wrong.

Thing is we KNOW who she is, where with the Donald there is some hope. Cankles is without question a lying corrupt criminal tool of the 1% and a disgusting warmonger...Trump may be too, but there is still a chance he is not...No chance at all with the pantsuit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gary Johnson takes the un-libertarian position that governments can punish those who exercise their free-will to not participate in something that is against their beliefs. We’re not talking about a physical harm between two parties; we are talking about an exercise of conscience. Here, it is baking a cake specific for a homosexual wedding. It could be any kind of situation where a customer asks a business to engage in something against one’s beliefs. In this light, Austin Petersen rightly makes a comparison about forcing a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi customer. You can see Johnson squirm as his libertarian credentials take a serious hit. Johnson favors punishing who he has a disagreement of conscience over a misguided “progressive” interpretations of discrimination and equality. He ultimately favors empowering the state over the individual. He favors compulsion.

Ignorant nonsense.

Comparing public accommodations laws with a provision for sexual orientation to ‘forcing’ a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi customer fails as a false comparison fallacy; being gay is not the ‘same’ as being a Nazi.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as authorized by the Commerce Clause – libertarian hostility toward Commerce Clause jurisprudence, Takings Clause jurisprudence, and other appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policies illustrates the fact that libertarian dogma is indeed naïve and sophomoric.

How is baking a cake interstate commerce? You may run and hide again like you do every time I ask you that question

So running a whites only diner should be constitutional? good one

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Or he prefers compulsion over the free market and slavery over liberty. If he is truly libertarian, he'll leave the businessman alone, choose to personally not do business if that's what his conscience dictates, and leave the government out of the equation.

libertarianism: definition of libertarianism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

Definition of “libertarian” | Collins English Dictionary

"a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc"

Definition of LIBERTARIANISM

"a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government"

Three quite different definitions from three dictionaries.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]"

I think I prefer Wikipedia's version.

What is The Libertarian Party?

"Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility."

It's not that much different to what the Libertarians say themselves.

So, it's about liberty which is about not being controlled by the government or others.

However, I'd say, like any right, there are limitations. Many freedoms conflict with other freedoms, many desires of free will conflict with other desires of free will. Who is there to mediate between the two? Should it be a free for all? No, that's Anarchy.

Libertarianism would be maximum freedom for all, which requires government regulation in order to achieve this.

So, I'd say liberty is the ability to walk down the street, go into any public business and conduct business there. If I am denied conducting business the same as everyone else, then I don't have liberty.
If I am denied service in a shop because I am black, or because I am a woman, or because I am gay, or because I have a deformed part of my body, or if I am denied because of something I was born with, then I am not free, I don't have liberty.

anarchy: definition of anarchy in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Anarchy

"A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:"

This is what some people believe is Libertarianism. It's not.

Oh, thank goodness. Finally, someone to explain libertarianism to libertarians. We've been lost without you. Your liberty is derived from property rights, that's where the limitations exist. For example, you have the freedom of the press, but it's not an abridgement of your press freedom if the New York Times refuses to publish your op-ed because it's their property. Likewise, if I decide not to serve you in my business it's not an affront to your liberty because it's my property. To force the New York Times to publish your op-ed or to force me to serve you against my will is the affront to liberty, because you're violating property rights. That has nothing to do with anarchy, and everything to do with respecting property rights.

Not really. You can't do whatever you want on your property, can you? Murder is still illegal on your property.

You don't have to set up a business on your property, do you? But if you decided to set up a business, you decide to follow the rules the country sets for businesses.

Now some Libertarians might say that a person should be able to serve whoever they like on their business and not serve others they don't like. However others might say that this takes away the liberty of individuals so isn't libertarianism.

And yet as libertarians I think we're the ones who get to define libertarianism. And no, that doesn't mean you get to murder people on your property, because people have a property right in themselves and murder is an example of a violation of property rights. Me not wanting to serve you a hamburger does not violate your property rights at all, but you forcing me to would violate my property rights. Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property. That's the definition.

Then define Libertarianism so that it isn't Anarchy.

Murder is a violation of property rights? What?

I think you need to define "property rights" first.

I repeat, "Libertarianism is against the use of violence against person and property." That doesn't have to mean anarchy, just ask any of the minarchist libertarians on this board, but it may mean anarchy to the anarcho-capitalists.

Yes, murder is a violation of property rights, of course it's not in the same realm as, say, stealing someone's television, but a violation of a higher degree. We all know what property is, but, from a libertarian perspective, my property in my material objects is derived from self-ownership. In other words, a property right in myself and my own body. Therefore, we have to logically conclude that any harm that befalls my body, assault, murder, rape, etc, is a violation of my property right in myself.

 

[Iceweasel]

And your solution is...? He will need congress to enact any trade deals, taxes, tariffs, etc. Government is already involved in trade, it's a fact. I don't see a better solution from anyone, including you.

The US government should do nothing to restrict my right to trade with foreign governments and businesses, what is unclear about that to you?

When did I say it was unclear? I said it was stupid. The government is involved with my business along with everyone else's. I have to follow rules, regulations, licensing, permits, taxes, etc. That's how it works in reality.

That obviously flies against the principles in your bunker but anarchy isn't for all of us.

All you're arguing is we have no freedom other than what government decides to give us. My right to life, liberty and PROPERTY according to the Constitution cannot be restricted without due process of law. My business is my property. That's what all those "rules, regulations, licencing, permits" do, restrict my property rights without due process of law.

At least you enjoy being a slave though:

I recognize the necessity of having a government. It's too big and needs to be scaled back but we still need it because people cannot be trusted. Permits mean people don't have a deck installed then the whole family dies as it crashes to the ground. You've taken a very extreme view but you are pissing in the wind and attacking windmills. Only a small minority will ever agree with you. You remind me of the Constitutionalists that argue with cops that they don't even need a driver's license.

My wanting government to not restrict my use of my own property reminds you of people who want shit for free. That's just completely fucking stupid.

I consistently argue AGAINST positive rights pointing out they are an oxymoron. A positive right by definition infringes on someone else's rights. I believe in negative rights only, I oppose positive rights completely. They are entirely different things

I didn't say anything about you wanting shit for free or the government granting rights so the stupid is all yours.

 

[sealybobo]

What an election year! The GOP nominates Donald Trump and the Libertarian party might break the 3-5% of the vote they normally get. Still means ya'll get used to saying President Hillary Clinton.

Even Trump is warning Bill Kristol not to run a Republican as an independent because then they can kiss the Supreme Court goodbye.

Trump slams 'spoiler' bid after Kristol says independent candidate to run | Fox News

Donald Trump took to Twitter Sunday night to slam fresh predictions from Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol that an independent candidate would soon be entering the race for president, warning that a 2016 “spoiler” could swing the race to the Democrats.

Trump:The Republican Party has to be smart & strong if it wants to win in November. Can't allow lightweights to set up a spoiler Indie candidate!
Bill: Just a heads up over this holiday weekend: There will be an independent candidate--an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance.

Trump: If dummy Bill Kristol actually does get a spoiler to run as an Independent, say good bye to the Supreme Court!

This is why I won't vote for Trump. The Supreme Court hangs in the balance.

But I also find it funny Trump isn't even worried about the Losertarian Johnson. Libertarians are nothing more than a blip in the radar. Unable to even convince 5% of us that their ideas are good. Even the tea party did better with nuts like Bachman & Palin.

 

[Redfish]

Libertarians on Sunday selected former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson as their party's presidential nominee, at their party convention in Orlando, Florida.

Johnson was the party's nominee in 2012 and once again won the position despite backlash from the party's more radical Libertarian wing.

In the first round of voting, Johnson reached 49.5 percent of the vote, according to the official party total, just shy of the majority needed for victory. His nearest opponents, Austin Petersen and John McAfee, reached 21 and 14 percent respectively. On the second round of voting, Johnson clinched the nomination with 55.8 percent of the vote.

Gary Johnson wins Libertarian presidential nomination at party convention - CNNPolitics.com

The Libertarian Party retains its status as a backup plan for failed Republican politicians by nominating Johnson again, and likely nominating Bill Weld for his running mate. At this point, it's time for the Libertarian Party to rebrand since they seem to be more interested in nominating Republican cast-offs than anybody interested in libertarianism.

Who cares? This clown is going nowhere

 

[Toro]

What an election year! The GOP nominates Donald Trump and the Libertarian party might break the 3-5% of the vote they normally get. Still means ya'll get used to saying President Hillary Clinton.

Even Trump is warning Bill Kristol not to run a Republican as an independent because then they can kiss the Supreme Court goodbye.

Trump slams 'spoiler' bid after Kristol says independent candidate to run | Fox News

Donald Trump took to Twitter Sunday night to slam fresh predictions from Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol that an independent candidate would soon be entering the race for president, warning that a 2016 “spoiler” could swing the race to the Democrats.

Trump:The Republican Party has to be smart & strong if it wants to win in November. Can't allow lightweights to set up a spoiler Indie candidate!
Bill: Just a heads up over this holiday weekend: There will be an independent candidate--an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance.

Trump: If dummy Bill Kristol actually does get a spoiler to run as an Independent, say good bye to the Supreme Court!

This is why I won't vote for Trump. The Supreme Court hangs in the balance.

But I also find it funny Trump isn't even worried about the Losertarian Johnson. Libertarians are nothing more than a blip in the radar. Unable to even convince 5% of us that their ideas are good. Even the tea party did better with nuts like Bachman & Palin.

Ralph Nader, with 2.7% of the vote, cost Gore the election.

Bush won Florida by 500. Nader got 100,000 votes in this state.

So it matters.

 

[Divine Wind]

LMAO. Is Johnson's johnson bigger than Trumps Johnson?

It's da hands boss, look at da hands.

Yes. Definitely bigger than Hillary's.