Ann Coulter on Stossel battles room full of libertarian students (updated w full show vid)

Libertarians pretending to be offended by funny jokes is very cringe-worthy for me. And then applaud like a crazy mob at one libertarian talking point... very irritating. She probably felt like she was on Bill Maher's show. Libertarians can be very annoying in person, especially in large groups.
 
Why don't the libertarians ever say publicly that the war on drugs is a front for the police state apparatus and for the purpose of funding off budget illegal programs? Instead of "WHY CAN'T I PUT WHATEVER I WANT INTO MY BODY?!!!!..."
 
IMO, any issue that violates the Constitution is just as important as any other issue that violates the Constitution. It's a matter of priority to me to get back to Constitutional principles on ALL issues.

Yeah, but it's not unconstitutional for state governments to ban drugs. I guess I'm not sure whether we're talking about the federal war on drugs or state drug prohibition. I don't support either, but I view ending the federal war on drugs as being a much higher priority than ending state drug prohibition.
 
Libertarians pretending to be offended by funny jokes is very cringe-worthy for me. And then applaud like a crazy mob at one libertarian talking point... very irritating. She probably felt like she was on Bill Maher's show. Libertarians can be very annoying in person, especially in large groups.

I actually thought it was really funny she called libertarians "moblike" after she essentially collectively called anyone who identifies themselves with libertarianism a "pussy"... in a room full of individuals who clearly identify with libertarianism.

"Libertarians are pussies."

"Stop attacking poor ol' me! For individualists you are all very moblike!!!!!"

lol.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but it's not unconstitutional for state governments to ban drugs. I guess I'm not sure whether we're talking about the federal war on drugs or state drug prohibition. I don't support either, but I view ending the federal war on drugs as being a much higher priority than ending state drug prohibition.

I was speaking of the federal war on drugs. States have the right to decide those issues themselves....IMO, that's the way it should be.
 
States don't have rights, individuals do.

If you can't point a gun at your neighbor and demand that they stop using Ibuprofen or drink Caffeine in their own home because you think they're "bad substances", then you can't delegate that "authority" to your "state representative" either.
 
Last edited:
States don't have rights, individuals do.

If you can't point a gun at your neighbor and demand that they stop using Ibuprofen or drink Caffeine in their own home because you think they're "bad substances", then you can't delegate that "authority" to your "state representative" either.

Ron Paul would certainly disagree. He's often said that the states have the right to ban drugs, that the issue should be decided by the states. The U.S Constitution doesn't contain any kind of right to drug use.
 
Ron Paul said:
Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people’s money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.

-from the appendix to Ron Paul’s great 2012 book Liberty Defined

Where you think the "authority" this group claims comes from? How do you delegate rights to a representative that you don't have?
You're arbitrarily giving special powers to an organization, because you want to use it to express power in ways that you can't as an individual.

Ron Paul may have argued against the Federal Government's involvement in the Drug War from a "State's Rights" perspective because he was arguing against Federal powers in terms of their unconstitutionality (which leaves powers not enumerated to the states), but he certainly understands that you cannot delegate rights that you don't have to someone who supposedly represents you.
 
Last edited:
Where you think the "authority" this group claims comes from? How do you delegate rights to a representative that you don't have?
You're arbitrarily giving special powers to an organization, because you want to use it to express power in ways that you can't as an individual.

Ron Paul may have argued against the Federal Government's involvement in the Drug War from a "State's Rights" perspective because he was arguing against Federal powers in terms of their unconstitutionality (which leaves powers not enumerated to the states), but he certainly understands that you cannot delegate rights that you don't have to someone who supposedly represents you.
...

10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 

And where does the "authority" of the Constitution come from?

You're basically making the argument that the Constitution usurps all individual rights and delegates all the power that it doesn't give to the Federal government to the states that comprise it.
 
Last edited:
"We the People"

"We the People" the collective authoritarian gang entity which can do whatever they want to individuals so long as it's the will of the majority?

Or is that supposed to be a group of individuals each with individual rights?
 
Last edited:
"We the People" the collective authoritarian gang entity which can do whatever they want to individuals so long as it's the will of the majority?

Or is that supposed to be a group of individuals each with individual rights?

I think you're misreading this. The 10th Amendment protects States from Federal Government tyranny. That's how I interpret it anyway...I'll admit, I'm no Constitutional lawyer.
 
I think you're misreading this. The 10th Amendment protects States from Federal Government tyranny. That's how I interpret it anyway...I'll admit, I'm no Constitutional lawyer.

Yes, it doesn't protect people from Federal Tyranny by placing some sort of legitimate Tyrannical Authority in the hands of the states that comprise the federation.

Rights come from individuals. Government organizations, whether Federal or the States that comprise it derive their powers from the rights of the individuals that are supposed to represent and protect, and none have the authority to exercise rights that the individuals that comprise it don't have to exercise against each other and can't delegate to it to do so.

You can't delegate the State of California the authority to lock up someone for possessing or trading an 'undesirable' substance in the same way you can't delegate to the State of California the authority to murder 'undesirable' humans. Individuals have rights, the purpose of governmental institutions is to protect those rights.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it doesn't protect Federal Tyranny by placing Tyranny in the hands of the States that comprise it, is what I'm saying.

But you aren't locked in to succumbing to that tyranny. If you don't like the laws in any one state, you can always move (and still be protected by the U.S. Constitution). I guess you'd be SOL if all 50 states prohibited a certain thing though.
 
But you aren't locked in to succumbing to that tyranny. If you don't like the laws in any one state, you can always move (and still be protected by the U.S. Constitution). I guess you'd be SOL if all 50 states prohibited a certain thing though.

The point is that there is no legitimate power for that Tyranny in the first place. It's gained arbitrarily.

If you do not have the right to point a gun to demand your neighbor to stop drinking Caffeinated coffee in their home, then you can't delegate authority to your representative to do the same thing through the government.

You're giving a group special privileges to use violence against innocent people who have committed no harm to anyone.
 
Last edited:
The point is that there is no legitimate power for that Tyranny in the first place. It's gained arbitrarily.

If you do not have the right to point a gun to demand your neighbor to stop drinking Caffeinated coffee in their home, then you can't delegate authority to your representative to do the same thing through the government.

You're giving a group special privileges to use violence against innocent people who have committed no harm to anyone.
No, the power is not gained arbitrarily. I don't know how things are in your state, but in mine we have elections where we vote on issues.
 
Can you vote on whether you want to kill all the Jews in your state?

Would that be legitimate? Why or why not?

What if your State Constitution expressly stated that Jews had no rights within that territory because a majority agreed to put it there?

Would that make it legitimate?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top