tax-financed healthcare, education, charity, and campaigns, but you
can't abide pure pro-libertarian positions if they are financed by the
principle backers of the world's leading libertarian think tank
(Cato)? And this is in the same breath in which you denounce
libertarian factionalism? Wow. I mean, just, wow.
The proper libertarian response to government licensure/privilege for
pharmacists is not to pile more regulations on top of pharmacists. The
ACLU vigorously opposes economic freedom of association across the
board, regardless of such licensure or other government privilege. The
ACLU systematically opposes the freedom of employers and businesses to
decline to engage in commerce for an entire range of reasons -- drug
use, disability, age, sex, religion, political beliefs, medical
condition, etc. It's simply Orwellian to indict the IFJ for imaginary
hypothetical positions related to the "oil industry", while excusing the
ACLU's very real and systematic assault on freedom of economic association.
The right to vote-- more precisely, to equal political representation --
is fundamental, but it is also arguably alienable. I can imagine
libertarian arguments against representation without taxation, and
geolibertarian arguments against representation without land
residency/occupation. I can imagine social contract arguments that
committing certain kinds of victimful crimes can abrogate one's right to
help decide what counts as a crime. No Pope of Libertarianism can rule
all such arguments as out of bounds -- especially not while claiming to
be more-ecumenical-than-thou.
I'm neither an Austrian nor an Objectivist, so that complaint seems to
be hallucinatory.
