Description

This is a Libertarianism Q&A I did using the new Facebook Mentions “Live Video” feature (from this Facebook post). I fielded a few questions on various topics, e.g. verbal threats as assault, assault and battery, causality, praxeology, etc.

Background:

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • I know that for me, polyamory and libertarianism go hand-in-hand. I wouldn’t say I’m poly because I’m a libertarian, but the two both come from the same place, at least for me. It’s all about respecting people’s choices and trying not to restrict their freedoms.   If you’re polyamorous, how do you feel it fits in with your other principles / philosophy?

    Jump to Discussion Post 34 replies
  • For the past few years, police departments have been on something of a power trip in the United States. Only citing the lesser-known instances that come to my mind, cops have assaulted autistic teenagers and murdered unarmed civilians, and were subsequently cleared of all charges and let back on the force. A zealous, dogmatic conservative “fanbase,” alongside a legal system that actively defends police from facing charges of murder, manslaughter, or assault, assures that these men and women never see justice for their actions. It’s awful what police are doing in society, but it’s even worse that they can get off scot-free for it. Of course, most of you already know this. So here’s my question: has any United States representative or senator proposed a bill designed to fight against unjust acquittals or introduce charges that are harder to to be overturned? As an agorist, I’m partially convinced that this has never happened and that anyone who gets elected for public office in this day and age is a vapid authoritarian, but a sliver of hope remains for me somewhere. Have any of you heard of such legislation on a federal level? If not, then what about on a state level?

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Is there anyone out there that can SHOW ME the LAW that says the IRS can interfere with the business of the State Department?  Is there anyone out there that show me where “Congress” acquired Legislative Jurisdiction to interfere with travel within a State?  Can anyone show me the Law that grants “Enforcement” jurisdiction to the IRS for any territory other than “Federal” Land?  Just because the bunch of outlaw-renegades that call themselves “Congress” puts a bunch of words on a piece of paper and calls it a “LAW” doesn’t mean that it is a True, Correct, and Certain string of words that actually is “enforceable”.  Yet almost every time Obama writes an “Executive Order” or “Congress” passes something they call a Law most people (including some that should know better) start claiming that you or I are on our way to prison because of some language in the “new” Law or Order.  So let me ask this: How many of you have studied “Federal Jurisdiction”, or Federal “Legislative” Jurisdiction?  How many have read the Constitution and know anything about Separation of Powers?

    Jump to Discussion Post 23 replies
  • What is the origination of property rights? Where do they come from that you can reason their existence as natural? We usually argue for property rights at some point in our discussions as libertarians, but I’m curious as to where we can claim they’re from. Personally, I derive mine from God and my religious beliefs, similar to what Jefferson stated about God given rights. But what about someone who doesn’t believe in a deity? How can they derive property rights in a way that can’t be dismissed as ideals, but derived in nature? This is also (and arguably more so) important for arguing these natural rights to people who won’t accept a divine aspect. It’s important to have property rights, and they’re evidently beneficial, but the argument remains for declaring these as rights, otherwise the NAP is in jeopardy. How do we have a right to property?

    Jump to Discussion Post 11 replies
  • I look to Our history in the US. I feel that the rights were inborn unto themselves. They are are organic. I dont see it practical nor applicable that a Law creates a Right. At the very least a Law could create a “Privilege.”  But in a society of Libertarian tolerance, there would ideally be few of them. From this logic, one could say that life is a privilege, and we must act accordingly, this obviously conflicts with the slogan, “A right to life.” (Which reminds me, someone who is put to death, do they have the right to life or is life considered a privilege in a death penalty case?) No need to answer this, just thinking out loud. This came from Conservatives ALWAYS ANNOYINGLY SAYING: “We are a nation of laws,” “The Rule of Law.” ect ect ect. This country exists because of Laws. “We have to follow the law because its the Law” Is it possible that Mao Se Teng (sp?) Hitler or Stalin, justified it the same way?

    Jump to Discussion Post 4 replies