You can’t say it’s OK for Michelle Carter to encourage someone to commit suicide and in the next breath say it’s not ok for Johnny Depp to encourage assassination of the President. Not if you’re interested in intellectual honesty and consistency.
Why? Because doing so requires you to believe that Carter’s words can influence her boyfriend to kill himself, while Johnny Depp’s words can’t influence someone to attack the President. They either do or they don’t, you can’t have it both ways.
It’s a major point of Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy that so many dismiss. And why libertarians are easily the most intellectually consistent among us.
Here’s another hard one. You can’t say that people are responsible enough to own and handle a gun and then say they aren’t responsible enough to use Marijuana. The point here is that the policy should be the same. If we require background checks to use guns we should also require them to use drugs. If we don’t for drugs, we shouldn’t for guns. It’s intellectually dishonest to believe otherwise. So ask yourself how responsible you believe people to be. Yes, this requires you to lump everyone into the same pool. Yes, I’m aware that includes the dull and ignorant, (but they too have their story).
Let me add one more that might be difficult to reconcile. You can’t say love your neighbor as yourself and then dislike someone for their sexuality, race, or religion.
Why? Because we are all connected by our humanity and in spirit. Now, you might ask, in the name of consistency, if it is possible to believe we are all connected by our humanity and also connected in spirit… For that, ironically, I’ll leave you with Ayn Rand:
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.”