First thing you have gotten correct. The rest of the analogy is goofy.
If you want PRIVATE debates, let the Parties involved pick up the cost. ALL of it. Otherwise, it's not private.
It will not be known till AFTER the debates how the money was raised. Until the debate is done, Mr. B is not harmed.
According to Libertarian philosophy, you have to wait until AFTER you are harmed before suing.
no, not the first thing I got correct. Maybe the first thing you understood.
The parties involved - the republicans and democrats don't pay for all the cost. It's paid for by donations.
Most likely the sites for these debates all lobied for them to be held there. It's their responsibility to make sure they are paid for. Maybe next time they should hold it at a regular private theater and forget about trying to make these universities happy for the publicity. Maybe that will keep the small government libertarians happy next time.
I guess my analogy was a little off...because bednarik isn't even a resident of arizona - he's a resident of texas. So my analogy would have to be changed to a someone from texas lobbying to get a part in a play in arizona because it's being held at a public university in arizona.
Bednarik has no standing as a 'wronged' person in this case - he isn't an arizona resident. So trying to force his inclusion on the grounds they claim is even more absurd.