It's The Fringe, Not The Middle

For a long time I have asserted that it is the fringe elements of society that define our freedoms, not the mainstream. Often I look for examples of this, and they are legion, but here is an excellent one because it is not a single issue. Most examples are very specific, such as a freedom of speech issue, but this one is messy. A messy issue such as this is a good place to work on your political thought because it requires you to take many things into account all at once, as opposed to the simpler single issue items. But more importantly, life is messy. The simple issues stick out because they are exactly that, statistical anomalies.

A teacher in Ohio has sued over being required to pay dues to a union that supports abortion when she does not. There are at least two issues immediately obvious, freedom of speech and the right to free association, and at least one adjacent issue being abortion.

Lets get the abortion issue out of the way because it only serves to clutter the mind. The fact that the plaintiff objects to her money being used for abortion is irrelevant, for indeed one could substitute any issue and the higher argument would still stand.

Ohio is not a right to work, and that turns out to be a sort of non-issue. On the one hand, the right to free association means that private organizations should and do have the right to exclusively hire from any union they wish. They have the right to enter into agreements with union that limit their pool of eligible workers.

Part of the problem is that the teacher is not working for a private enterprise. I hold that private groups may be so exclusive, but not so for public groups. State organizations do not have the same rights as private ones, and should be barred from entering into any exclusive deals with unions. This practice leads to corruption as union leaders begin to wield power against the state organizations the state is tempted to buy them off with favors and other undeserved rewards.

State organizations are fundamentally different from private ones in that they, above all other organizations, are required to most strictly adhere to labor regulations and public policies. Failure to do so will bring anger in the electorate who will act to clean up the mess, unless, of course, the public hands are tied by exclusive contracts.

On top of all this is the freedom of speech issue. Anyone joining a union of their free will must be willing to accept that the authority delegated to the union leaders may result in uses of the union dues that they personally disagree with. But that is not what's happened here. To practice her trade in a public organization she is compelled to join a union. She has had her free will diminished. It is true she could choose to practice something other than education, or could choose to work in a non-union private school, but as I've demonstrated the requirement of an exclusive union contract is improper and so she is the victim of fraud.

The state of Ohio has perpetrated the fraud of an exclusive union contract, and then used it to coerce potential workers into violating their rights of free association and freedom of speech.

Columbus, OH (LifeNews.com) -- An Ohio teacher has filed suit against two teacher's unions over the fact that her compulsory union dues are used to promote abortion. Kathy Hart, a fourth grade teacher from the Coldwater Exempted Village School District filed the lawsuit in federal court.

Hart sued the state’s largest teacher union for forcing her to pay compulsory union fees to fund the union whose activities violate her religious faith.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys are providing Hart with free legal aid and filed the suit this week in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

Hart, an active member of the Catholic Church, has been a teacher in the Ohio public school system since August 1996.

Because the public school she works in is unionized, she works under a collective bargaining agreement which forces her to pay compulsory union fees to the National Education Association (NEA) union and its state and local affiliates - the Ohio Education Association (OEA) union and the Coldwater Teachers Organization (CTO) union.

Due to her Catholic faith, Hart doesn't like to pay the fees because the NEA takes a pro-abortion position and the unions support pro-abortion political candidates.

Hart had asked that the union divert her compulsory fees to a charity, thereby accommodating her religious objections to supporting financially unions she believes to be involved in immoral activities.

NEA union officials agreed to allow Hart to redirect her compulsory union dues to a mutually agreed upon charity. However, OEA officials refused to accommodate Hart and used the CTO to collect forced union dues from her paycheck.

In response, Hart filed suit alleging that the union officials’ actions were religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission authorized Hart in September to proceed with her own civil action against the OEA and CTO.

“OEA union bosses have a long and abusive record of violating employees’ rights by refusing to accommodate religious objectors in the workplace," National Right to Work Foundation vice president Stefan Gleason told LifeNews.com.

Gleason says the dues issues are another reason his group supports Right to Work laws allowing employees to refrain from supporting unions and their political agendas.

Hart's case follows a case involving another Ohio teacher who won a federal district court ruling saying that requiring her to pay dues to the National Education Association is a violation of her First Amendment Rights.

Carol Katter sued to stop being forced to fund the organization because her money would be used to promote abortion.

The Ohio affiliate of the national group told Katter she could only be exempt from paying union dues if she changed religions.

http://www.lifenews.com/state3683.html

Fairness Doctrine is Tyranny

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-Thomas Jefferson

It might strike someone as unlikely that the founding fathers would have had to deal with topics akin to the mislabeled "fairness doctrine", but indeed they did, and the above is how Thomas Jefferson responded to it.

Radio stations are required to purchase a license from the federal government in order to transmit. Never mind that this is tyrannical in and of itself, the point is, they pay a tax in the form of a license.

They pay this tax with the expectation that they can operate a business. Some of them choose to operate the business of selling political talk. This is the free will choice they make, and they can choose to put any political talk, left, right, center, off the chart or otherwise on the air. But the mislabeled "fairness doctrine" would thwart their free will and dictate that they must propagate ideas that they did not choose.

Our judgment that this is tyranny is confirmed by that of a mind no less than Thomas Jefferson.

The Libertarian ideology utterly opposes the mislabeled "fairness doctrine" and urges you to protect your freedom by joining it.

Spending our way to economic prosperity!

Current events are a great way to illustrate the madness that passes for economic and political thought these days. As I've stated before, my blog is not a running commentary on the events of the day, but some events are interesting enough to catch my attention. The most recent being President Elect Barack Obama's as reported by CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/06/obama.jobs/

Headline Reads: Obama outlines initiative to create 2.5 million jobs

In the text of the article is the important target date "...by 2011". When I read that I tend to think that means than, at midnight 2011-Jan-01 there will be 2.5 million new jobs. We can be gracious and give it all of December 2008, even though he's not in office yet, and that happens to give us 25 months. This means the Obama administration must create 100,000 jobs a month, on average.

This is a very tall order, but it's actually achievable. All the government has to do is hire 100,000 people a month for 25 straight months and, viola, promise achieved.

Never mind that this is likely just another campaign promise. When you spend a great deal of your time creating and reciting lies you get into the habit.

What will the effect of this policy be? I can tell you what it will NOT be. It will not be a economic boom, or even a positive economic effect. It will be a net loss. This is because the government does not add wealth to the economy. It might add money, but that causes inflation which moves the wealth around, but does not create any. Or, it might tax people to pay for these workers, and again that moves the money around, but it does not create wealth. At best it is an economic break even, and when was the last time you saw a chaotic system such as the economy be static at equilibrium? (never)

This policy will ultimately drive the economy down.

The way to create wealth is to get the hell out of the way of businesses. Businesses can't wait to grow! They love to grow! They love to hire people to do more things.

Anyone who understood even basic economics would see the negative effects this policy will have. Barrack is not stupid. He knows this about his own policy. Why does he do it? Because he also knows this will add 2.5 million people who will now look to the government for their next check. He knows it will add dependency. He wants people to need him. He needs people to need him. He's the Santa Clause we all wish existed, and if you want the toys in your stocking all you have to do is whatever he says.

If this policy is any indication of how the Obama administration will govern, then we're in for a terrible economy for the next 4 to 10 years, because he will be unable to stop with just this one bad policy and will do his level best to enact more.

What would Jefferson Say?

I was watching the HBO special about John Adams, and in the course of the story he finds himself in Philadelphia talking to Thomas Jefferson, who we all know was the principle author behind the Declaration of Independence. That turned my mind to the great document itself. I wondered how many of the charges leveled against King George III would be equally fitting if leveled against the current United States Government?

I have heard others state that, if you take the list of offenses in the document and look at the US government of today you will see many of the same offenses.

I extracted the large list of offenses from the document and see how our current government stacks up. I choose the middle section of the document, which is a list of offenses, but left out the other charges in the opening and conclusion areas.

To make it more proper I have replaced the pronouns He and Him with [Our government] and [it] respectively.

[Our government] has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

I don't think that has happened often, and when it does it is usually at the state level. More than once state voters have adopted resolutions, or even attempted to amend their constitutions, only to have an out of control court over turn the will of the people. But on the whole I think we're safe on this score, at least as it was in comparison to what Mr. Jefferson witnessed.

[Our government] has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, [It] has utterly neglected to attend to them.

This has not been an issue, and indeed is not likely to ever be as it reflects the form of government. There is no King from which assent is required, and thus no possibility of Royal neglect.

[Our government] has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

Again, this is a throwback to the form of government faced by the colonists.

[Our government] has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

This has not been a problem, at any level that I'm aware of. Congress meets at the same place as always and on a regular schedule known well in advance. No complaints there.

[Our government] has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

We have not seen this happen.

[Our government] has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

No dissolutions, no way for this to happen.

[Our government] has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

Well, I suspect we have the exact opposite issue now! Our government seems to be completely at ease allowing anyone into the country without any process what-so-ever, and then even defending their status here.

[Our government] has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing [its] assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

Not a problem thus far.

[Our government] has made judges dependent on [its] will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

Not a problem in that the legislatures set the salaries, but they are elected, and no single government authority asserts its will over judges directly. The higher courts, of course, and properly, influence the lower courts by overturning those rulings that do not meet their standards, but on the whole the courts are not on an iron grip other than its own.

[Our government] has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

Now this is beyond true! George Washington had 4 cabinet members, President Barrack Obama will have 15! The size of the federal, state and local governments has swollen out of all proportion with the size of the population, and a good many of these officers "harass our people, and eat out their substance".

[Our government] has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

This has not been a problem, in that it is our legislature that might keep a standing army, and thus it cannot be without our consent. And in a broader scope neither has the government sought to quarter such troops without our consent in out private homes.

[Our government] has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

This has not happened. The military is still subserviant to the President.

[Our government] has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving [its] assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

This is actually starting to happen. With the UN, and the WTO and so on the government has, in some limited cases, asserted that foreign authorities were higher than our own constitution.

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

Again, our troops, and not in our houses.

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

No problem here. Anyone in uniform that commits a crime can expect to be prosecuted for it.

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

If anything the exact opposite is true. The government seems to be rushing head long into all sorts of "free trade" agreements.

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

I believe this has happened in some rare cases, but not nearly to the extent that Mr. Jefferson witnessed. I also believe that, in most or even all of the cases, they were later repealed or confirmed by vote.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

This looked like it might have started happening except that it was beaten back, specifically the denial of Habius Corpus was a problem that we seem to either have resolved or in the process of resolving.

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

Guantanamo Bay anyone? Not on a large scale, but such things begin small. This looks like it might soon be undone.

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

This does not seem to be a problem.

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

Not a problem.

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

This has been a slow process where states rights have been usurped by the federal government, and the counties and cities usurped by the states. Power has been collecting in fewer hands.

[Our government] has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of [its] protection and waging war against us.

The government has not waged a shooting war to be sure, but it has done some things to intentionally reduce our abilities to resist it should the need arise.

[Our government] has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

No, this has not happened.

[Our government] is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

Not yet, but I do not put it beyond the government to call on NATO or UN troops to assist should an internal conflict break out.

[Our government] has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

This has not happened

[Our government] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Not so much armed conflicts, as playing one group off another, but that's to be expected.


In my conclusion, while some things are similar, Thomas Jefferson would not write the document as he wrote this one if he were doing it today.

I see people as victims of uncontrolled free market capitalism

Recently I received this statement in an email from a liberal friend. It was in the context of discussing economics as the liberal left sees them versus how the Libertarians see them.

I could not let such an uninformed statement stand. But I also thought it would be good to include in my daily comments here as it is instructive to others who might be liberal, or who might be talking to liberals.

To be a victim one has to be deceived or cheated by the dishonesty or brute force of others. There are two avenues of injury then, force and fraud.

It is not possible to be coerced in a free market, as the act of coercion cancels a free market. This has always been recognized as a crime. The use of deceit in any private transaction has also always been recognized as a crime.

The next problem is the word "uncontrolled", which is really the same as free. Any controlled market would, by definition, not be free. A controlled market would mean that some transactions are illegal. This thwarts the freedom of will of the participants. It should be noted that control is not the same as regulation. Regulation simply lays out the standards of business, such as the requirement of an APR being showed in any loan or credit transaction. A control would be a law stating that the interest rate cannot go above a specific, and arbitrary, number.

Finally we come to the word "market". This is a common error by the left, to blame something other than the individuals involved. The market is nothing more than a statistical description for the private transactions between individuals. It is not a corporal thing one can touch. The market is not like a bridge. If you're driving on a road and it suddenly collapses beneath you, then of course you can blame the system for any reasonable driver might just happen to be at the wrong place and time. But the market is just an abstract concept without any ability to harm anyone. If individuals are cheating each other, then that is not a fault of the market, but of the individuals involved.

The worst part of my friends thinking is that she concludes two wrong things. First, she concludes that capitalism is to blame for people cheating each other. Second she falsely believes that the Libertarians would turn a blind eye to injustice.

Both errors are the natural result of ignorance. People not understanding capitalism or free markets is one thing, but people unable to understand the touchstone statement of Libertarianism "The government exists to remove force and fraud from human relationships" has to make me wonder what could possibly have gone wrong in their thinking?

My friend is not stupid. I have to concluded she failed in her application of the principles of Libertarian thought. Libertarians hold that the markets must be free, and anyone coerced or deceived has every expectation of a government ready, willing and able to undo the injustice and punish those who have committed the crimes.

Given this situation her statement could never come to pass. This is a common problem for those on the left because they have never lived in a free society, so they cannot know what one feels like. They see injustice, and blame the wrong things because they have never been exposed to real freedom. In the world "the system", that amorphous body of evil things, often does people real harm, and so they blame "the system", and by accident label the system capitalism when, in fact, capitalism was never involved.

People living in "the system" are NOT free to practice capitalism, thus to blame it is to misunderstand. People in modern America are not in a semi-capitalist system, and because they are not the term capitalism should not be applied. We Americans live in a mixed system that capriciously allows capitalist like activities in some areas, and not others. In fact, we are in a highly controlled market.

In a free market all injustices would be sent to the courts, and the courts would resolve the issues. This is because the only source of injustice is one person inflicting injury upon another.

In our polluted system we not only have individuals injuring each other, but we have "the system" itself! And, as liberals are not by and large stupid, they see the injustice and erroneously associate it with the label that has been applied, that being capitalism and conclude that capitalism must be the source of the injustice when, in fact, it is the pollution itself that causes the problem.

What would our world look like, in your view...

I understand your theoretical arguments, but what about practicality? What would our world look like, in your view, if we did exactly what you think should happen?

This is a big question! I do not believe society could simply transition from what it is today to the Libertarian ideal over night. I believe it would take at least three full generations to work the acceptance of bondage out of our mindset. I'm also going to limit it to a Libertarian USA, and it's just too much to hope for the whole world to embrace Libertarianism (until we demonstrate its power, of course!)

Thus, to answer the question best I should start by explaining the basis from which all else will flow, then I apply it to various topics.

I start with what I will call the four points of Libertarianism
* The Libertarian ideal is focused on the freedom of the individual
* Your life belongs to you
* You property belongs to you
* Government exists to remove force and fraud from human relationships

From these points we can see immediately that personal responsibility is not just a good idea, it's required. Because no one owes you anything. You have to earn your way through life. This would eliminate all entitlement programs. Entitlement programs are contrary to the third and fourth points. I do not owe anyone else anything of mine which I have legally earned.

From these points we can see that by definition, property rights means the ability to dispose of property as you see fit. Affirmative action would vanish. The minimum wage would vanish. Unions would likely grow stronger in a Libertarian world. Collective bargaining is perfectly acceptable to the Libertarian world view.

From the four points we can see that the government would have to get out of our bedrooms and the marriage business. Issues like hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and adoption would be a thing of the past. However, part of the potentially ugly side of Libertarianism is that people would be free to discriminate against anyone they choose.

From the four points we can expect income taxes to be consigned to the dust bin of history. It is neither the governments place to try to enforce some Utopian ideal of equality, nor is the income tax compatible with true property rights. Of course, the government cannot operate without money. The income tax would be replaced with the fair tax. The required taxes would be tremendously less because of the discarded entitlement programs. The government would operate many more toll roads and charge many more use taxes than it does now.

The Libertarian world does not have drug laws, nor motorcycle helmet laws, nor seat belt laws. It does have baby seat laws. What you do with your own body is up to you, but a child is not ready to make those same decisions. It does have DUI laws. It does have drinking age limits and cigarette age limits as well as other drug age limits.

The government would not be able to spy on you, without a proper warrant. The government would not be able to strip you of your rights at the stroke of a pen.

Public education, like many public services, would be replaced by free market services. This does not mean the government would have no role. The government could reasonably make the case that all parents, who are responsible by virtue of choosing to become parents, owe their children an education up to and including high school. The government would be responsible to administer standardized tests to make sure the children are keeping pace. The parents would have their choice of whatever schools, including home school, that they wish. The pledge of allegiance would be a non-issue. Prayer in school would become a non-issue. Condoms in school would become a non-isse. Those that wanted such things would have them, those that did not would not. There would be other issues of course, but I think you can see the ideal.

The military would always be an all volunteer force. The military would be a strictly defensive weapon. It would only initiate force if attack was imminant. (Iraq was not a credible threat to the US.) The USA would stop seeing itself as the world cops! Everyone, not convicted of a violent crime, etc, would have the right to own and carry a weapon, open or concealed, without a permit.

Businesses would still have to meet work place safety guidelines. Businesses would not be able to dump pollution into a river and walk away. Business would, however, never pay another dime in income taxes. Businesses could not make political contributions. Individual people could make as many and as large a contribution as they wished.

Things like NAFTA would exist, but they would require that imports be essentially manufactured to the same standards, by people with the same labor conditions. Trade barriers would exist, but they would not be tarrifs. Tarrifs are an incentive to cheat. It would be all or nothing. If the products are up to standards, it can pass without anything more than a standard port usage fee. If it is not up to standard, it cannot enter the country. No middle ground.

Banks would not report deposits. Loans, insurance policies and all other complex financial instruments would continue to be regulated, but perhaps a bit differently. The emphasis would always be on openness and accountability.

Health care would be provided by doctors, and not insurance companies. Insurance companies would not be allowed to second guess or refuse to pay for covered care items. Only doctors can practice medicine! This extends to pharmacy companies as well. They cannot give free samples or kickbacks of any kind to doctors, clinics or hospitals. Only doctors can practice medicine!

Many, most, perhaps even all, of the licesnesd professions would remain so. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, airline pilots and so on would all be required to pass reasonable training and compentency tests.

Tort reform would be a must. Reasonable, or even unreasonable but not the current unlimited, caps on damages for negligence and product failure would have to be established.

The government would NEVER EVER bail out a company in distress. We would all stand around and watch it die, or live. Sell the corporate jet!

Illegal immigration would be a thing of the past. The boarder would be patrolled, and people could enter the country provided they could reasonably document they are not a known criminal, they have a place to stay and a job, and are not infected with a communicable disease. You would not be required to speak English. The path to citizenship would begin when you enter the country. Being caught in the country without proper documentation would be an instant ticket out of the country. Immigrants who want to come here and build a better life for themselves and their families are welcome with open arms.

Lastly, and far and away most importantly, the national anthem would be replaced by the Star Wars movie theme... OK, I made that last one up!

"...you and I could perhaps agree..."

A friend and I were exchanging emails and after a short paragraph she added this closing statement:

Don't get me wrong...on most political compass tests I am liberal/libertarian. So, you and I could perhaps agree on libertarianism with regard to social issues. ;-)

This statement sort of twisted in my mind for a while because it bothered me. This one bothered me because it contradicted my world view. But the contradiction was subtle. When faced with such a statement I wrestle with it and examine it from every angle I can until one of three things happens:

• I get distracted by something else
• I accept the statement as correct and adjust my world view
• I figure out what bothers me and reject it
  

In this case the last item is what happened.

People often produce such statements in the course of a light exchange, as was ours, without following them to their logical ends. But when talking about philosophy one cannot afford to be loose because it is at the extremes that the boundaries are located, not in the middle. So the measure of any such statement is always found at the logical ends, and thus I shall take this statement to see where it goes.

The statement holds a contradiction, but it's a slippery one until you examine it. The key phrase comes at the very end "...with regard to social issues." The problem here is that my friend has attempted to divorce financial issues from social ones. I'm fairly sure she does not even realize the contradiction herself.

Freedom is always a social issue no matter what the topic. To understand you must first understand the concept of freedom. One person alone in the universe has total freedom for that person could never infringe upon someone else. That person also has no social aspects for social requires multiple people. When you introduce another person into the universe, now the potential for one to infringe upon the other exists.

If you could imagine a single person, alone in the universe, you would easily grasp that whatever he choose to do with his life is his business alone, and what he choose to make with his efforts would be his property. By his creative thought and efforts the person has brought into being things which did not exist before, and having done so at the expense of his own life has the highest claim to the creations. In short, he owns his life, and he owns the fruits of his labor, called his property.

Upon adding another person to the universe you would not change the essence of the first person. The first person would still own his own life, and his own creations. The second person, being a person, would also own his own life and creations. From this we perceive that people are, by their very nature, the owners of their own lives and property.

Adding a third person does not change the essence of the first two, and as a person he too shares their essence. Indeed, adding arbitrarily more people to the universe does nothing to alter the essential fact of freedom being the right to own ones life and ones property.

The fundamental flaw in her statement is that she attempts to disconnect ownership of life and ownership of property. But by doing this she divides freedom, and by doing that she introduces bondage. For wherever freedom is infringed upon by another, bondage exists. And this is her message to me, and I suspect to the world.

People understand bodily bondage easily, for being physically bound is hard to ignore. Being the victim of property crimes is more abstract, but no less damaging.

The statement she expresses, if taken to its logical end can be better stated as "You are free of body, but slaves of property".

And in this, we cannot agree. Libertarianism rejects bondage, oppression, slavery and tyranny in all its forms, and liberals do not.

I doubt my friend meant her statement as a precise example of liberal philosophy, but in fact this is what she managed to produce. The danger in such statements, and indeed why it bothered me in the first place, is that it sounds reasonable, when in fact it denies reason by containing such a contradiction. Statements like these accidentally confuse the discussion, and in the minds of those less interested to undertake a study such as mine could mislead them into the unfortunate position of supporting them.