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 -  (1 child)

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] 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?