Big difference, IMO.

At least this race, the Libertarian Party doesn’t have the most laughable candidate. I definitely lean towards libertarian, but I realize libertarianism is utopian. I do have a practical streak — darn it all!

“They probably would privatize them, but that’s not quite what I said. Anyway, even if they did, I think the situation you proposed is a little more complex than that. In a community it may be worth more for a company or group of them to build a park than strip logging the area. There are other economic factors involved.”

Actually, it’s quite simple. I can make a little money over a long term chargeing admission to, say, Prarie Creek State Park. Or I could liquidate it and make alot of money right now.

And once you’ve built the Great Smokey Mountain Outlet Mall or the Half Dome Residnetial Retreat, there’s no going back.

A newspaper, for example, being privately owned, can refuse to print any letter to the editor they so desire. Most don’t, but they could. It is well within their rights.

Likewise, if I invite you to my house and you start saying things I don’t like or find offensive, I am well within my rights to kick you out and call the police should you refuse to leave.

Would Adrian Lopez change this? Would he (or she) make it so that I cannot remove people from my own property if I find they are becoming disruptive? Would I lose the right to control what happens in my own house? Would I be forced by the government to tolerate any slight, any disruption, any insult or annoyance in my own house in the name of a misunderstood idea of “free speech?”

Say someone walks onto a black family’s lawn and begins to scream racist remarks and wave signs covered in racial slurs. If property owners could not deny “free speech” to people on their property, the family would be forced to endure this abuse, and any attempt to remove the racist jerk would be illegal. Is this what we want?

The idea that ANYONE cannot limit speech is absurd and not at all in line with the Constitution. Simply looking at the way things work should tell you that.

For instance, a Libertarian might say that if a Jesus freak wants to stand on your lawn with a megaphone and harangue passersby, you would have the right to call the police (yes, there would still be police) and have him removed. Why is that so bad? The guy with the megaphone would need to find a property owner who agrees with him, or failing that, buy his own property. You have a right to control what happens on your property.

I wrote a post earlier that apparently the moderator of this blog did not agree with (I was saying that vouchers to help send kids to private schools would be beneficial). My post was not added to this discussion. That’s an example of a property owner exercising his right over free speech. He, or she, has every right to edit, control or ban my speech on this blog. If I don’t like it, I can start my own blog.

Although I’m very proud of my daughter, don’t take this as a bragging post, I’m just trying to defend at least some of the public schools

As someone who recently exited the public education system, I can say that 75% of public education needs to be reworked, trimmed, or completely gutted, but the other 25% is absolutely crucial. Regardless of whether it’s idealistically better to materialize a world with no public schools, the best way to combat the problem right now, in my eyes, is to fix the 75% crap.

Just to add: Love Penn most of the time and he was great at influencing me to become more skeptical. Irrational fear of the government is still irrational, however.