No, you’ve got it, Spooje. Rights are authority that accrues to property ownership. That’s why every man is born with the right to life (which accrues to his body) and the right to consent (which accrues to his mind).
I’m having trouble envisioning a world where everyone owned a piece of land, therby controlling that aspect of speech. In this case, couldn’t those without land be shut out of our ‘free speech’ thing entirely?
You’re alive, aren’t you spooje? Be thankful of that. Now shut the fuck up and get off my property (land), before I confiscate what property you do have (life and consent). That’s how it works in Liberal land. 
Not necessarily. And certainly no more than politicians shut it down now upon their own whim. See, the principle I’ve explained holds no matter what the system; it’s just that magistrates exercise de facto ownership over so-called public property — you may swim here, but not baptize, or you may protest here but not there, and so on. Therefore, your freedom of speech in a public park is in direct proportion to your political clout. That’s why a Green Party candidate or a Libertarian Party candidate must jump through hoops of fire just to get a name on a ballot.
But the magistrates at least have to pay lip service to the free speech ideals, as they are, at some level, accountable to the electorate, gullible as that electorate may often be. (man, that’s a tortured sentence!) In the system you describe, those same magistrates could own the land outright and abandon the pretense of allowing free speech. It may be more honest, but doesn’t seem less tyrannical.
Under your system, though, there wouldn’t be any public parks, now would there? I guess that simplifies things somewhat. Perhaps the real reason that Libertarian candidates “must jump through hoops of fire” is that most people think they’re insane?
Personally, I think there’s a reason it’s tortured. It is rather a futile exercise to formulate a reasonable statement that will produce any real sense of free speech out of lip service by politicians and a gullable electorate.
It is less tyrannical because they own only what they own. They do not draw lines on maps, call them “borders”, and claim power over everything and everyone within them. Remember that you cannot be governed without your consent. (If you wish to break off into a separate discussion of that, that’s fine, but then I will consider that matter of which is more tyrannical than which to be settled.) The notion of eminent domain, which exists in the present system, does not transfer over to a libertarian one. Niether does asset forfeiture.
Ignoring all the bickering going on here, I’ll just post my thoughts on the matter.
Free Speech Zone, is a repugnant term. There should only be one “Free Speech Zone” in the 48 contiguous states, and the boundary of that zone should follow the boundaries of those same 48 states. There should also be two separate zones, called Alaska and Hawaii.
It is my recollection that protesters have been given their own area to protest for a lot longer than Bush has been in office. But again, the wearing of T-shirts with slogans have not been before a target of site security. I object to having my freedoms taken away, whether it is from the Republicans, the Democrats, or anyone else for that matter.
Perhaps, except that it is not only Libertarian candidates, but all candidates who are not either Democrat or Republican, including those who are Independent.
Whereas in Libertopia, freedom of speech anywhere is in direct proportion to your wealth. Refresh my memory, what is the Tree of Liberty watered with again?
But you are free to accumulate wealth so long as you coerce no one. Political clout, incidentally, is famously expensive. Have you heard how much candidates are spending this year?
Can you not answer a direct question Lib? In Libertopia, do the poor and unlanded have freedom of speech, yes or no?
You ignored this part:
So what’s your answer to that?
I see that we are firmly back in Libertopia. Who decides the initial asset allocation, which necessarily involves the drawing of borders between what’s yours and what’s spooje’s? What’s the transition path from here to Libertopia?
Well, can you ask a question that isn’t loaded? A man need not be both poor and unlanded. My father was dirt poor and worked very hard to scrape together enough to buy a small plot of land and build a house on it with his own hands (and the help of cousins). And as I said before, it makes no difference whether you are in Libertopia or Ameritopia, the same principle applies. I have no right to come into your house and say things you don’t permit me to say. And I have no right to go to a so-called public park and say things the local magistrates do not wish me to say. Go under the bridge of the Brookshire Freeway in Charlotte and ask some of those gentlemen how much free speech they have. But don’t draw too much attention to them because they will be arrested for existing.
Hey, they can always talk to themselves.
I thought you were being rhetorical since I’ve consistently condemned the notion of so-called public property for the past five years.
I’ve addressed that question many times as well. I’m not sure there is one. I realize that my dream is only a dream. At the very most, I can only hope that, in time, the principle of noncoercion can form the basis of some part of society’s law. Perhaps it may be different at some more enlightened time in the future. Meanwhile, I see my role as one of holding up the banner for whomever it might comfort.
I’m sure the irony has not escaped you that we are debating all this in a perfectly libertarian context. The privilege to discuss these things has been extended to us by the owner of the Straight Dope message board, who has sole rights with respect to it.
For a fee. Someone who doesn’t have the cash gets to say nothing.
Given what your OP was, I can’t see this response as being anything other that an admission of the truth of the accusation I made against you.
True, but it hasn’t always been that way, and there are plenty of message boards where you can speak for free. But even there, and even here in the past, it is always at the discretion of the owner.