07-26-2016, 02:19 AM
Is (our) agenda, in your view, one that strives to forward the concept of Individual Liberty fully or one that strives to forward the concept of Individual Liberty piece-meal? I'm of the view that it is both dishonest and counterintuitive to create the illusion that Individuals or groups of Individuals may claim benefit to Individual Liberty without acknowledging, accepting and defending the foundation that provides for the principles of Individual Liberty itself together with Individual Liberty's fundamental principles in whole. That is to say that if we reject and accept them piece-meal, then, by default, we will not benefit from them as an Indivisible whole at all.
Anyway. I suppose I'm trying to better understand/measure the integrity of this "Liberty Campaign Evaluation" grading system. So, then, I have some questions if you'd consider reserving effort to acknowledge and address them precisely. Well. Really only two questions, I think. But they're honest questions that are offered in the sincere interest of stimulating functional dialogue as it relates to honest summation of one's so called Liberty grade as a prospective leader. More precisely, a president. Coincidentally, it should be noted, understood and agreed that government's only role is to protect Individual Liberty.
Does the site (we) 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 do not prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equally doing the same? If so, then, does the site (we) also accept that an open rejection of this primary fundamental principle is, by default, aggressive toward the concept of Individual Liberty fully? Surely, the site (we) must agree that Individuals should be free to own property and to exchange in trade without restriction provided they exchange in trade honestly.
Gary Johnson, for the record, has openly acknowledged his position that he'd force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals by way of the barrel of a government gun. Gary Johnson, to be clear, professes this position under the banner of Liberty itself. That's a fundamental naw naw with the most critical of consequence if the position is not logically observed and rejected fully and immediately. Well...if (our) agenda is to forward the concept of Individual Liberty fully.
The right to property, as you may know, Bryan, is an indispensable and principal material support for Man's God-given unalienable rights. Most notably, the right to Liberty itself. I will repeat that and I will underline it for sake of clarity and purpose to scope. Again... The right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Liberty itself.