FPTV ep. 2-3: Rand vs. Libertarianism (Morning Commute)

Episode 2: The Morning Commute. Part 3 of 4 parts. While driving to his office, Freedom Party of Ontario leader Paul McKeever discusses a range of topics. In this part: Ayn Rand's Philosophy; Rand's non-aggression principle; anti-philosophy, anarchism and libertarianism; Paul McKeever's theory on the legitimacy and source of governmental authority. Recorded: October 20, 2006.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• freedom
• party
• ontario
• ayn
• rand
• non-aggression
• principle
• philosophy
• government
• authority
• Paul
• McKeever
• libertarianism

[CamillaCalamity]

And the government (where I live) can force people off of their land, forcibly take their property, and imprison them as they see fit. We have rights and freedom until the powers that be decide they'd like to use us for something.

[Libertarianist]

Yes, I agree, I can't remember the context of my comment, but I think it is valid to threaten violence as a response to violence or an unprovoked threat of violence. For example "If you point that gun at me, I'll shoot you first."

Until Iran threatens to use a weapon they've developed, we should leave them alone but still make it clear to them what the result will be if they use, or even threaten to use a nuclear weapon.

[Sam26100]

Well, libretarians think that invading Iran is wrong, even though there is conciderable evidence that they are working on nuclear weapons

[JaredLangdon]

I checked out the web site of the Libertarian Party of Ontario and read their material. I could not find anything that differentiates that party from Freedom Party. They believe that it is the proper place of government to use force to protect freedom. Ditto for the Libertarian Party of Canada. So for me the question remains - what's the difference between the Freedom Party and the Libertarian Party? BTW, many thanks to you, Paul for all that you do to promote freedom.

[dharmashapta]

You are waffling. Libertarians defintely consider self-responsibility and consentual contracts. You are also wrong about libertarians not beliving in premptive strike. If there is evidence, its perfectly fine in defence. I think your idea of libertarianism is wrong.

[Libertarianist]

Who are you arguing against in this video?

[Libertarianist]

Threatening to drop a bomb IS an act of coercion. And I think all libertarians agree on that. I also believe that we pretty much agree that prevention of acts of coercion is justified, by your strawman, robbing a man at gunpoint isn't coercive, only until he shoots is it coercive.

[Libertarianist]

I may be committing the 'no true scotsman' fallacy here but I don't know any libertarian who would consider your example coercion by the wealthy man. And if I did meet one, I would assume that he doesn't understand libertarianism and is not actually one.

[sexdrugsRnR]

there is nothing wrong with protecting property rights.. but even that is a decision an individual should make.

protecting property through contract is the way, not through force.

[terraindrain2]

It comes as no suprise that this redneck mouth-piece lives out in the country.