Description

A blind man sued Domino’s Pizza because his screen reading software wasn’t compatible with the company’s mobile app or website. He won. Ridiculous.

The government has no business forcing companies to build apps & websites that cater to blind people.

Time for a refresher on what constitutes a “right.”

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • Would it be worthwhile advocating for a voluntary state? Now this might seem a contradiction in terms, but consider this: 1) This state would collect voluntary taxation 2) Candidates would be elected by voters to spend the voluntary taxes on ‘public services’ such as welfare, public housing etc., all the goodies progressives want. 3) This state would not have the power to use force in its interactions with citizens Advocating such a system would show that these things can be paid for voluntary, and expose the gun in the room of our current system. Just a thought. Has such an idea ever been proposed? Would it be worthwhile?

    Jump to Discussion Post 6 replies
  • An Emergency lawsuit has been filed against Veritaseum (VERI). Yes, you have heard it right the United States Security and Exchange Commission(SEC) has filed an emergency lawsuit in a Brooklyn federal court against Veritaseum (VERI) claiming that the company and its founder and CEO Reggie Middleton have raised $14.8 million United States dollar (USD) in an illicit transaction that has turned out to be a fraud and there was a disregard for the regulatory requirements in this transactions. Veritaseum (VERI) may have earned around $15 Million United States dollar (USD) from an initial coin offering and this may be an unregistered regulation of the cryptocurrency. The emergency lawsuit is for the crackdown in the way in which Veritaseum (VERI) has made this amount. At the time of writing this article Veritaseum (VERI) was trading at $5.28 against the United States dollar (USD) and the coin was showing a positive and upward growth of 16.15 percent. The market cap of the coin was $11,344,279 United States dollar (USD) and the trading volume of the coin was $606,731 United States dollar (USD). The following is an excerpt from the lawsuit filed “Defendants knowingly misled investors about their prior business venture and the use of offering proceeds; touted outsized — but fictitious — investor demand for VERI; and claimed to have a product ready to generate millions of dollars of revenue, when no such product existed” The United States Security and exchange Commission (SEC) is further concerned that Veritaseum (VERI) is manipulating with its digital currency in order to become more attractive to crypto traders. The coin was trading at as high as around $15 but this emergency lawsuit has given a huge blow to the coin and has caused massive damage to the digital currency. Let us see how the coin plays out in the days to come.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 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
  • Is hunting (killing) animals, whether commercially of for sport, a violation of the NAP? Your thoughts…

    Jump to Discussion Post 15 replies