A Fleshed-Out Response to Miss Victoria Hammett
I recently entered quite the Tiktok dispute with @VictoriaHammett.
I sought clarity on one of Victoria’s positions, and she replied with a video response stating that “conservatives including Alex” are flipping her video on its head. She said this after I specifically clarified that I am a Capitalist– nothing more. No matter. . . I have thick skin. Her childish, pedantic games do not phase me.
Due to her evident misunderstanding of my position, I proposed a debate. . . a debate in which both of us would have the opportunity to clarify our positions and hear the other party’s side. 60-second TikTok videos are not conducive to fruitful dialogue– ergo, a Youtube debate seemed rational.
The resolution at hand pertained to whether or not the government ought to intervene in market affairs to prevent discrimination. And instead of operating in good faith argumentation, she opted to smear me and engage in obvious misrepresentations of my position (I will include a quote below).
The conversation I proposed for debate in my videos did not relate to whether or not the government currently does impose anti-discrimination law, but rather if they ought to do so. This was the area where I believe Victoria misunderstood.
Clearly, under our current legal system, there exist anti-discriminatory policies– but the question pertains to if we should. I oppose the Anti-Discriminatory policy for the same reason I support Twitter’s ability to ban President Trump i.e. ex post facto refusal of service. That reason is the principle of Freedom of Association.
This right is a derivative of the right to liberty, which outlines and sanctions man’s right to act in accordance with his rational faculty to pursue the actions he chooses, so long as they do not violate the individual rights (life, liberty, and property) of another individual.
The concept I have seen both Victoria and her followers then propose is: “Oh, but Trump agreed to Twitter’s terms and conditions when using their service.” I agree. I have no problem with Twitter banning Trump.
But on principle, the same case can be made for a baker who outlines their terms and conditions of service to require the consumer to be of a certain sexual orientation.
If you enter their shop seeking service and cannot agree to their terms and conditions, they have no obligation to enter a contract to provide your desired good/service to you.
Additionally, many of Victoria’s followers have brought up the question of protected classes, stating that refusal of service on the basis of non-chosen characteristics (i.e., sexual orientation) is different than individual refusals of service.
The problem here is that the premises do not logically affirm the conclusion. Any volitional refusal of service on the principle of free association is valid. The case-by-case justification would be wholly irrelevant so long as the overarching premise is the concept of volitional association.
If I don’t want to enter a contract with someone, the government ought not to be able to mandate that I enter such an agreement to provide a good or service– that is my position.
Finally, due to confusion, I find it necessary to defend myself against baseless claims. Victoria refused a debate with me as follows:
“Why would I platform someone advocating for racial d1scrimination?”
This is a nonsensical dog-whistle. I oppose racism vehemently.
It is an evil ideology of hatred and collectivism that I have spent the entirety of my intellectual career denouncing. To suggest otherwise is fear-mongering and quite frankly, despicable.
Discrimination is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as such: “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex,” and in this context– we are talking about discriminatory behavior on the basis of race.
At its core– “It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage — the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. This means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors,” Ayn Rand says in The Virtue of Selfishness.
I reject the doctrine of racism wholeheartedly. As an individualist and an egoist, it is antithetical to my prescriptive worldview.
To conclude– Victoria, I am more than willing to entertain a debate with you. Please read the above and reconsider your refusal. If the answer is still no, at least, stop seeking to tarnish my name by straw-manning my positions.
Sincerest Regards, Alex
