We all expected Ruwart to hit the talking point that the the issue here is primarily bright-line rules that turn calendar accidents into crimes. But as her intelligent supporter Alex Peak has pointed out, such bright-line mistakes are possible in rules created both by the state and by a privatized legal system. So what I wanted to hear was Ruwart's argument that the state shouldn't make *any* such rules against aggression directed at those unable to consent.
The argument she gives is breathtaking in its audacity. She says: libertarians oppose the state's laws against certain substances and tools (viz., drugs and guns), so you're not a good libertarian -- "do you believe in liberty?" -- if you don't also oppose the state's laws against aggression (e.g. production of child pornography). To state the argument is to rebut it.
I don't mind hearing weak arguments for anarchism; been there, done that. However, I do mind when an anarchist candidate for our nomination suggests that to support minarchism over anarchism is to "sell out" or to "denounce liberty" or to "stop being the Party of Principle and become the Party of Expediency" or to "fall for statist propaganda". If Ruwart believes that there is such a thing as principled minarchism, I see no evidence of it in her essay.
Earlier today I wondered aloud if Ruwart really wanted her candidacy to be a referendum over anarchism. Well, now we have her answer.
