QUESTION: Why do so many so-called libertarians want negative freedom, that they purport to be for freedom but then are totally fine with corporate private entities acting like a government hierarchy to regulate anything an employee or worker does? This is the opposite of Republicanism.

submitted by Jesus from self.conspiracy

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]James_Kuhn3rd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The biggest difference is that, the government can come to your door using men with guns, i.e., LEO's, military, or some other executive branch hit squad/agency (e.g. FBI, DHS, IRS, HHS). If these men make a mistake and kill you or your family by accident, they face few if any penalties, perhaps transfer to a different agency or precinct or a bad performance review is their disciplinary punishment.

You might believe your forced into using Google, but you aren't. In fact, if you toss your cell phone and your computer in a river, no agency will come to your door and demand that you purchase new devices and resume online shopping, using their mapping applications, talk and text on that device, etc. Likewise, If you pay your bills with check or money order, they won't decline your payment.

The cooperation between big tech and the government is extremely dangerous, without a doubt. But under a capitalistic system, there are always alternatives that will pop up, such as patriot mobile for cell phone service or black rifle coffee instead of Starbucks.

Far more problematic, are the companies such as Equifax, transUnion etc who build government sponsored dossiers on us without our consent. But even then, you could still just use cash for everything and avoid all of them.

However, your question stems from the fact that like most millennial, x-ienniel, and gen Z'ers, you don't have a proper understanding of what is a right. Yes I know it is 2019, and you might truly believe the internet and healthcare are a right, that Facebook is a right, But under the system which devised our constitution, these aren't rights.

I find myself leaning heavily libertarian. However, I came to realize that a libertarian society can only exist in a culture where it's morals and foundations have the strong underpinnings of Judeo Christian values. If you have no ultimate higher authority, then the state is extremely likely to fill that role, which is exactly what's happening in our society.

There is a growing majority of the population that look to the government, to the president, as the entities providing their rights. they'd rather have the government tell them what is and isn't allowed. They'd rather government provide a safety net for those who need one, or at the minimum ensure that those who fall through the cracks are taken care of. Years ago, a majority of the people looked to each other as the ones to be the solutions, not the government. Institutions like churches, Lions clubs, Moose, Knights of Columbus once reflected These values and traditions.

It is what it is I suppose. I don't look at this as generally positive, but, as they wrote in the declaration, it's up to the people to declare what the government should be, and what it should do, and it should reflect the people it represents.

I'm not sure if the constitution were written today, it would pass. In fact, I don't think it would, not even by close margin. The first five amendments seem to be under aggressive attack generally by any state Hilrod win in 2016, and she won by popular vote..

[–]Jesus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(3)

...morals and foundations have the strong underpinnings of Judeo Christian values.

I would say the Judeo aspect can be argued. Judaism has many moral codes of law but we also have Judaism denominations who believe the Zohar, Kabbalah, and Babylonian Talmud are the holiest of holy texts. There are many oral laws and traditions in these texts which are backwards and immoral. Jesus made this clear in the New Testament. Now, we have Chabad-Lubavitchers who would like to impose noahide laws, which would essentially ban Christians from worshiping Christ as their lord and savior. Why? Because they claim it is idolatry, and in the noahide laws, according to many of these denominations idolaters would be executed by a procurator under a Sanhedrin.

If you have no ultimate higher authority, then the state is extremely likely to fill that role, which is exactly what's happening in our society.

My higher ultimate authority is God and Christ above all. I do agree with you, that if the state were to bar the simple morale codes of Christianity, not as the Catholic church or a priesthood purports, but as Jesus intended it to be, we would fall into the antiquity of Enoch’s time. Rampant occultism, without any sense of God or moral code.

There is a growing majority of the population that look to the government, to the president, as the entities providing their rights. they'd rather have the government tell them what is and isn't allowed.

Which is why the country of the United States is incorporated. Essentially, the constitution does not apply to those who vote or rely on the state under the incorporated states jurisdiction. Common law is allegedly held in the Untied States of America, not the trade marked Untied States which was created after the civil war. You are correct in saying there is a growing majority of the population that look to the government as entities to provide their rights.

They'd rather have the government tell them what is and isn't allowed.

Yes, but so doesn’t the amalgamation of corporations with government ; corporate laws set in place by our sold out government who has allowed tacit agreement contracts. The laws set in place by the cronyist state have favored corporatists at the expense of an individuals liberty, privacy, and freedom. Should we ask the state to enforce more laws, in favor of we the people? Should we demand the revocation of a galore of treasonous laws that benefit the corporations (now classified as a person) and private contractors at the expense of unfairly regulating we the people? We, supposedly have a constitutional republic, or a representative democracy. Clearly these forms of government do not apply to the state anymore. Bush claimed that the constitution was just a piece of paper.

We are an oligarchy run on corporatism and croyism. We have been for quite sometime and the 30 years Princeton study proves this. That doesn’t mean there are not elements of a capitalist system. Clearly, on a local scale the capitalist economy exists.

They'd rather government provide a safety net for those who need one, or at the minimum ensure that those who fall through the cracks are taken care of. Years ago, a majority of the people looked to each other as the ones to be the solutions, not the government.

I agree with you here. And even scarier is that the people demand the state and law enforcement who for the most part are in bed with the state take away our guns.

...it's up to the people to declare what the government should be, and what it should do, and it should reflect the people it represents.

And it should be, but it would take a revolution to keep government interference in social life at a minimum whist it provides for the people only one purpose. To uphold freedom, independence, and autonomy. When government amalgamates with multinational corporations to regulate the common person, clearly we have a very big problem. If we were to revolt and repeal this amalgamation the predatory corporations would still prey on the common person, erasing his or her freedom.

I'm not sure if the constitution were written today, it would pass. In fact, I don't think it would, not even by close margin. The first five amendments seem to be under aggressive attack generally by any state Hilrod win in 2016, and she won by popular vote.

Hillary Clinton is an authoritarian, Trump is much of the same. They despise the constitution. Have you not seen Trump’s proposal of swift execution before due process for hate crimes, or his promotion of Baker Act laws, Red Flag laws as well as the TAPS Act? Trump is anything but a constitutionalist or patriot. Though, his rhetoric doesn’t surprise me, considering his friends in the 90’s, were the ones directly involved in the 9/11 cover-up.

The constitution would not be passed today. Most of the people in power today despise the constitution and Gods law. They are the antithesis of freedom, and liberty. They only want power and control, which is why they coalesce with predatory corporations and were advocates of treasonous bills. They despise the 2nd amendment, attack the 1st amendment, have nearly obliterated the 4th amendment with the signing of the Patriot Act and NDAA 2012…

(calling patriots and constitutionalsits belligerents)

...under the ruse of national security. This has for the most part been orchestrated by Zionists, neomarxists and Neoconservatives (neotrotskyites) who have hijacked Republicanism and the Church for their own warped, authoritarian interests.

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(1)

The biggest difference is that, the government can come to your door using men with guns, i.e., LEO's, military, or some other executive branch hit squad/agency (e.g. FBI, DHS, IRS, HHS). If these men make a mistake and kill you or your family by accident, they face few if any penalties, perhaps transfer to a different agency or precinct or a bad performance review is their disciplinary punishment.

I agree wholeheartedly that these state agencies face few if any penalties, despite many glaring mistakes and/or criminal acts on the job. The Department of Homeland Security, in fact, is an unconstitutional agency that emerged after the false flag 9/11 events. DHS works with private agencies, including crisis management firms to conduct psychological operations on the American people, via the legalization of PSYOPS under the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, effectively nullifying the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. Many of these state agencies work closely with private firms in the security, and surveillance sector.

You might believe your forced into using Google, but you aren't. In fact, if you toss your cell phone and your computer in a river, no agency will come to your door and demand that you purchase new devices and resume online shopping, using their mapping applications, talk and text on that device, etc.

Considering, Google has placed their analytics on nearly every site, even if the site is not required to use Google services, it makes it fairly hard to not be forced into using their services. Like you have stated, you must “toss your cell phone and your computer in a river”, whilst you hope that the 5th generation smart grid, promoted by law enforcement…

(who have purchased state telephone poles to install this tech for crowd dispersal, via concentrated directed beams in the 70 – 95 ghz range)

...tech companies, telecommunication giants and government agencies, including the FBI and CIA does not engulf your property with invisible electromagnetic radiation that can effectively surveil and obtain personal data on a persons behavior in real time. This tech also opens up a security niche market for private security companies to provide security and perhaps privacy via virtual proxy networks for businesses and homeowners who honor their god given right to privacy and their obliterated 4th amendment rights.

Having the elements of a capitalistic system, yes, there are alternatives that will pop up but with further state control of these industries fueled by cronyism and the amalgamation of monopolistic corporate interests with government, the corporatocracy will certainly try to prevent start up programs and smaller goodwill companies from having any chance of being competitive. As oligopolies, they will simply price fix, creating burdensome barriers of entry.

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(2)

Likewise, If you pay your bills with check or money order, they won't decline your payment.

Yes, for now. With the advent of digital money, including Apple credit cards, Facebook currency and the so-called, supposed decentralized currencies like Bitcoin, Ripple, etc,. as well as the IMF and Bank for International Settlements calling for nation-state digital currencies, it will only get more difficult in boycotting these services backed by private Tech companies, possible surveillance agencies like InQtel, Amazon with their AWS technology and Google and their analytics. I can only imagine what the future will hold thirty years from now. Just yesterday I watched the CEO of Microsoft say that private tech firms must amalgamate with government and law enforcement. “They must” he says. They already have to a certain extent, but “the must” rhetoric is particularly scary. Why does he express these views? He says it is because of disinformation and misinformation spread by anonymous users and state actors. That means people like you and I, who question a states practice and/or expose the corruption in corporations and intelligences agencies. I can’t even post videos on YouTube now, I have been banned many, many times, most of me videos were banned during their upload process. So, I changed over to an alternative, Bitchute.com. Guess what? The Jewish CEO of Bitchute is totally fine with users posting antisemitic videos with zero context (possibly to surveil them), but if you unmask psychological operations or try to expose specific individuals, your videos simply disappear. Are there any other alternatives, no, not really, but as you’ve said, we must throw our computer in the river.

Far more problematic, are the companies such as Equifax, transUnion etc who build government sponsored dossiers on us without our consent. But even then, you could still just use cash for everything and avoid all of them.

Yes, but what happens when tangible cash, even though the dollar is merely federal reserve debt notes should cease to exist? Let us hope decentralized forms of currency emerge in our transition to digital, traceable currency.

However, your question stems from the fact that like most millennial, x-ienniel, and gen Z'ers, you don't have a proper understanding of what is a right. Yes I know it is 2019, and you might truly believe the Internet and health care are a right, that Facebook is a right, But under the system which devised our constitution, these aren't rights.

I believe that the state should NOT enforce health care as a right. Instead, they should stop bailing out large health care companies with billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Bailing out creditors and predatory monopolistic health care companies gives them a predatory incentive to act as vultures again. Instead, we should give health care companies positive incentive to uphold their duty to provide health care at low costs. That means inhibiting predatory monopolies by making creditor bailouts illegal. States should have dozens and dozens of private health care options. This will motivate competition with merit and duty. If a company decides to screw their patients they will go bankrupt and no bailout will be allowed. They are responsible for their motives, not the state and definitely not the taxpayers. Again, this will provide competition and prevent monopolistic price fixing. Prices will be reduced and if somebody doesn’t like their health care they can simply switch to a more reputable company with different options.

I don’t believe that the Internet or health care should be a right. If the 2nd amendment applies today, which it does, then we all should have battle rifles. Meaning the state should not be allowed to ban assault riles, i.e., automatic rifles. We should have equivalent firearms to those that are used in the army. So, with the advent of the Internet age, should the 1st amendment of free speech apply? Does it apply?

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, neoliberals say that the freer the market the freer the people. But they don't tell you that they push corporate monopolies which erase competitiom. There needs to be a balance and clearly neoliberals are faux libertarians. What is your take on Welath of Nations and classical liberalism? Adam Smith understood that if you let the marker work it self out w/ zero regulations, eventually, price fixing would become an issue.