Statist Senator Chuck Schumer Seeks to Silence Citizens

"I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute...You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment." --Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Senator Schumer is wrong. He illogically packages libel, inciting panic, etc with legitimate forms of free expression as reasons to limit your speech (it's a trick that politicians have been using for ages to curb your liberty. Ayn Rand called this the "Fallacy of Package-Dealing." She described it as "failing to discriminate crucial differences... consist[ing] of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or 'package,' elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value."[1]). 

Is it rational to claim one's right to free speech includes threatening another with physical injury or death, falsely smearing one's reputation, or inciting a panic that could bring harm to another individual? Of course not. These are not exceptions to or limits on the First Amendment, they are logical restraints on irrational behavior with the purpose of protecting individual rights--which is what proper law is all about. There is no such thing as a "right to threaten", a "right to libel," or a "right to incite panic." Such things have nothing to do with the First Amendment. 

Your right to free speech is absolute. Absent a violation of another's rights (which is not a right in and of itself), the government has no right to interfere with the exercising of your rights. If you find that the best way to spread your ideas is by donating your money to a candidate that espouses your ideas on a world stage, how can that be logically deemed a violation of another's rights that warrants government action?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]  “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24

Happy Randsday!

Happy #Randsday! Remember to live $elfishly--enrich yourself with the values required of life, or waste away and die--there is no other alternative!

Pres. Obama's Rotten Apple

President Obama is comparing the glitchy rollout of the ObamaCare health insurance exchanges to that of Apple's iOS 7, saying, "Now, like every new law, every new product rollout, there are going to be some glitches in the sign-up process along the way that we will fix... Consider that just a couple of weeks ago, Apple rolled out a new mobile operating system, and within days, they found a glitch, so they fixed it." 

But he has missed the point entirely. The government is not a business. Its role is not to rollout a health insurance exchange, glitches or no glitches, but to protect the rights of the people, i.e. protect them from the wielders of physical force. ObamaCare does the exact opposite—Apple does not force its consumers to purchase its products or insurance for its products under the threat of penalties like ObamaCare empowers the government to do (and thus turning government into a rights-violator), but engages with others in mutually beneficial voluntary trade; such is the nature of business. The nature of government, however, is force, and therefore must be properly limited to using that force objectively, i.e. as a retaliator in protecting the rights of those whose rights have been violated.

As such, ObamaCare is nothing but a rotten apple and for Obama to compare the two situations is intellectually dishonest and a sham perpetrated upon the American people.