ihopehefails
VIP Member
- Oct 3, 2009
- 3,384
- 228
- 83
- Banned
- #1
What right does any of us have to interfere with any voluntary agreement between two parties that are not connected to us because if two people enter into any agreement that both sides are happy with then what right does an uninvolved person have to deny both parties their choice?
A good example is the accusation made by the left that the government creates supposed economic elitism through conservative policies but how can this true when the creation of the super-rich are created by a mutually satisfactory agreement between two independent parties such as the consumer and the producer. The government is completely uninvolved in the decision making process of either the producer or the consumer so the real culprits are the people involved in the agreement itself because there is no authority that the government has that compels either consumer or producer to enter into the transaction so there is no policy that creates "elitism". It is the consumer's choice that produces the super-rich corporation and not government policy.
Yet there are those who wish to interfere with this choice and act as the third party and deny them the right to make that choice for themselves and they forget the old expression "your rights end when they violate mine". They are violating the right of anyone else to enter into any agreement with a corporation because they don't want to create "elitism". There rights only extend as far as a personal choice over themselves and not over others so if they choose to enable this process then you, the third party (or the government), do not have a right to interfere with their choice which denies your ability to control others.
This is really the state of a free society. It is a society where each person is bound only by the agreements they make with others which makes all actions we undertake voluntary and mutually beneficial to all because who would freely enter into any agreement where they end up giving more than they receive in exchange.
The agreement we make with others encompasses more than just financial agreements but all agreements such as a marriage because a man and a woman enter into an agreement with each other. That agreement is always maintained by upholding certain conditions such as forsaking all others and when that agreement is broken both parties (the man and woman) dissolve the relationship.
There is no government force compelling one side to be with the other because the power of choice is always maintained and the only government force that should be used in a free society is to have a government that seeks only to enforce all social contracts made between two individuals because it leaves the power of choice over ones own life in the hand of the individual citizen and not to those outside of the agreement that believe they have a right to interfere with the lives of others.
A good example is the accusation made by the left that the government creates supposed economic elitism through conservative policies but how can this true when the creation of the super-rich are created by a mutually satisfactory agreement between two independent parties such as the consumer and the producer. The government is completely uninvolved in the decision making process of either the producer or the consumer so the real culprits are the people involved in the agreement itself because there is no authority that the government has that compels either consumer or producer to enter into the transaction so there is no policy that creates "elitism". It is the consumer's choice that produces the super-rich corporation and not government policy.
Yet there are those who wish to interfere with this choice and act as the third party and deny them the right to make that choice for themselves and they forget the old expression "your rights end when they violate mine". They are violating the right of anyone else to enter into any agreement with a corporation because they don't want to create "elitism". There rights only extend as far as a personal choice over themselves and not over others so if they choose to enable this process then you, the third party (or the government), do not have a right to interfere with their choice which denies your ability to control others.
This is really the state of a free society. It is a society where each person is bound only by the agreements they make with others which makes all actions we undertake voluntary and mutually beneficial to all because who would freely enter into any agreement where they end up giving more than they receive in exchange.
The agreement we make with others encompasses more than just financial agreements but all agreements such as a marriage because a man and a woman enter into an agreement with each other. That agreement is always maintained by upholding certain conditions such as forsaking all others and when that agreement is broken both parties (the man and woman) dissolve the relationship.
There is no government force compelling one side to be with the other because the power of choice is always maintained and the only government force that should be used in a free society is to have a government that seeks only to enforce all social contracts made between two individuals because it leaves the power of choice over ones own life in the hand of the individual citizen and not to those outside of the agreement that believe they have a right to interfere with the lives of others.
