The Libertarian Argument

Just heard two comments on Tweety.

One guy said that he believes in Property rights, so if you 'own' some property, you can set the rules around that property.

Another guy said that someone can say that it is like slavery, saying you can't have something, saying government is like slavery, ignoring that private sector is a form of governance.


So if a buisness or a person has billions of dollars they can not defend they own, and own all the 'property' can they then set any law.


That is what is missing in that argument, and somebody needs to explain the libertarian position is not libertarian, but defense of unearned wealth being able to set laws, not society.


They don't even know it, but deep in there subconscious they believe that if you have money, then you have the right to make laws.

They don't want government to set any limits, but they want some arbitrator thing like being born with millions, or some action shown not just, being willing to take millions from some group of people, then using that 'property' to set policies.


They don't want an elected representative of the people to set laws, they want anyone that can get money, and 'buy things' to set the laws for people around those things.

By the libertarian argument, if all the water, healthcare, food, and housing was owned by something like banks, they believe those banks should be able to decide if people should have those things or not, then from those threats try to set what you can and can not do.

Doesn't anyone understand that?

Side note, I am due beer and travel money, and to those helping many people by sharing thoughts, that is great, to those trying to help a few people or themselves, that is a different story.




If the libertarians were honest, they would say they support those with money, without a public comment on if those groups should set laws.


Ron Paul, should a company be able to say weather a worker can use drugs? How is that different then a public government setting a law about that?

And it would require a governmental regulation to stop something like drug test by companies without probable cause, or to try and control a person freedom when they are not at work.

Why is it wrong for a government to make a drug illegal, and why would you say it is right for a company to be able to do it by threatening loss of ability to buy food and have shelter.

It is freedom to assure all people have the basics, housing, food, energy, health care, and basic needs. Then they can not be put in slavery, even if the means to that is an elected body that represents the freedom of people by taxing those with more then they need to provide those objects that can keep people from the perpetual edge, hanging by the fingers on the cliff, that is needed to control.

Don't you understand, the threat to crash the government is why they put government in debt, they need things teetering on the edge, to be able to threaten you. All those policies against health security, energy security, job security, are so they can control people easier. To take there freedoms.



Tweety I think you do pretty good.


However, I heard a bit about things like asking, or interviewing or stuff like that. I can explain my perspective.

When you walk into what some might think is an interview, to 'hire you' or find what you can do for them. If by the time you leave, they don't know you already own there company, your not doing it right.


Side note I am due beer and travel money, I don't have to ask for it.

For those that don't know, 'asking' is transfer of control over the decision. Knowing the due will be sent to me, is knowing that what is just will occur.