Paypal sueing Google: more false-libertarians!

[Trent Harvey, Jr.]

Well, well, Trickle-Down Charities LLC has been taking donations via Paypal for some time, but that just might change.

You see, Paypal's owner claims to be a libertarian. He claims to be against all government. Yet he seems to like the part of the government that enforces copywrite claims. Copywrite and intellectual property issues are all decided upon and enforced by governments, in a truly free market anyone would be free to make any product they want, without the government looking over your shoulder to see if you invented it yourself or not.

"Amanda Pires, PayPal's senior director of global communications, said in a blog post that while PayPal prefers to innovate to win customers, "sometimes the behaviors of people and competitors make legal action (read GOVERNMENT ACTION) the only meaningful way for a company to protect one of its most valuable assets--its trade secrets."

You know, if you were truly innovative, you wouldn't need the government to prop you up like that!

And it gets worse:
"According to the complaint, Tilenius contacted Osama Bedier, then at PayPal..."

Paypal hired a guy named OSAMA!?!?!

I need a new way to get donations.

[Trent Harvey, Jr.]

Re: Paypal sueing Google: more false-libertarians!

A few more thoughts:

Those employees that Paypal is sueing are the people who did the work and created the wealth. So why does paypal believe it owns their work? That's what governments do, taxing other people's work and wealth. If Paypal truly opposed government, they wouldn't act like one. If paypal actually believed in free markets, it would just be people coming and going, buying and selling their products, not a mini-state with rules like "you can't emmigrate and sell what you invented to someone else". Even Obama;s government doesn't do that, outside of military technology. Is it Paypal or Paycomrade?

YOu know, google is entirely within it's free-market rights to have every search for "paypal" end up redirecting users to that video of the two girls eating what first seems to be chocolate ice cream but then horribly isn't. I'm not recommending this as legal advice, I'm just throwing it out there.

Not that I'm a libertarian myself. True Christians do believe in government, but we believe in limited government. Just keep to the bare basics: a military better funded then the rest of the world's militaries combined, 100,000 spies ready to wiretap, waterboard, and investegate democrats for oral sex, skating rinks in Alaska, fashion police, a higher ratio of prisoners than China and North Korea, that bridge in Alaska, regulation of who gets to marry, and keeping government out of medicare, social secuirty, and agricultural subsidies. and so on. Just the basics. Later we'll add a ban on gambling, birth control, premarital sex, adultry, sodomy, pornography, skateboarding, jungle music and so on. Just the basics. Then we'll move on to government limited to what it did in Biblical times: killing all that moves in nations God tells us to kill, executing adulterers, executing homosexcuals, executing witches, well, you've all read Deuteronomy, right?

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Re: Paypal sueing Google: more false-libertarians!

Don't pick on Peter Thiel, he and the CATO Institute agree with us that in a True Democracy women can't vote:

The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women - two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians - have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron.

See, he agrees with all us Tea-Party Republicans - it's not a democracy if people we don't like are allowed to vote.

[Trent Harvey, Jr.]

Re: Paypal sueing Google: more false-libertarians!

The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women - two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians - have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymormon.

Don't misinterpret him: by calling "capitalist democracy...an oxymormon" he's saying that you can either have capitalism OR democracy, you just can't have both. Since he supports capitalism, he is saying he opposes democracy.

Of course, anyone who has ever invested in China knows that "market leninism" - capitalism without democracy - is the most libertarian way to go.

He does say that capitalist democracy is still possible, but only if women can't vote. I disagree, even when women can't vote they still nag their husbands to vote for socialists , see Teddy Roosevelt, and Lincoln for two examples. That means the only way to preserve democracy is to make sure that nobody can vote at all.