Today, 02:19 AM
Well. Is the agenda to forward the concept of Individual Liberty fully or piece-meal? It is dishonest to create the illusion that Individuals or groups of Individuals may benefit fully from the principles of Individual Liberty unless the foundation that provides for the principles of Individual Liberty itself is genuinely accepted in whole with them. That is to say that if one rejects and accepts them piece-meal, then, they will not benefit from them as an Indivisible whole at all.
Do you agree that the primary fundamental principle of Individual Liberty itself is that Individuals or groups of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves doesn't prohibit others from equally doing the same? If so, then, do you accept that a rejection of this primary fundamental principle is, by default, aggressive toward the concept of Individual Liberty fully? Do you accept that Individuals should be free to exchange in trade without restriction provided they exchange in trade honestly?
More precisely, Gary Johnson openly acknowledged a position that he'd force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another Individual by way of the barrel of a government gun. Again, he provided the position under the banner of Liberty itself.
If you accept this fundamental principle as true and necessary for Individual Liberty to be had fully as an Indivisible whole, then, the primary principle must not be rejected in Liberty. Gary Johnson openly rejected Individual Liberty's most fundamental principle. And under the banner of Liberty, no less. As such; he rejects the foundation for its moral code. If it is the primary mission of this site to truly forward the cause of Liberty, then, its position should, in my view, reflect adherence and support for Individual Liberty's most fundamental principal. Because to reject Individual Liberty's most fundamental principal is to reject the concept of Individual Liberty fully.
The only morally honest conclusion is, in my view, to correctly and accurately provide for him an F on principle alone. The principles of Individual Liberty must be accepted in whole with its fundamental moral foundation. Not piece-meal. If one accepts and rejects the principles of Individual Liberty piece-meal, then, they'll guarantee themselves that they'll not benefit from them at all. Of course, it is a given that anyone whose admitted position, from under the banner of Liberty itself, mind you, that he'd force Individuals or groups of Idividuals to relinquish their property to other Individuals or other groups of Individuals by way of the barrel of a government gun has a fundamental misunderstanding of what Individual Liberty actually is as well as the fundation for its moral code. Would you not agree with that assessment?