Trolling the ship channel?

[MathGeek]

I wrote:

Employers and insurers should have complete freedom with regard to their drug testing policies.

AA replied:

Exactly where in the libertarian's platform do you see that they intend to be the new "Thought Police"? Could you please point it out?

Goooh advocated in this very thread for drug testing by private employers to continue, just as it does now. Presumably this means with all the government intrusion and Dept. of Labor regulations currently in force.

I advocate for something different. Real liberty. Just as any EMPLOYEE can currently quit (assuming no contract obligations otherwise) if their EMPLOYER refuses to voluntarily submit to a drug test requested by the EMPLOYEE or if the EMPLOYER tests positive, real liberty would allow employers to require testing of employees at will, with refusal to test or testing positive taken as grounds for immediate dismissal without all the federal government oversight and regulation that currently exists. Libertarians want smaller government and less regulation, right?

Likewise AceArcher has advocated universal healthcare in this very thread. Presumably this means insurance must be provided to all, regardless of their drug use. In contrast, I think the true libertarian position would be that any insurance company can decide to cancel insurance or charge more for drug users.

Please note that I make a distinction between "libertarian" as a political philosophy and "Libertarian" as a US political party.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I wrote:

Employers and insurers should have complete freedom with regard to their drug testing policies.

AA replied:

Exactly where in the libertarian's platform do you see that they intend to be the new "Thought Police"? Could you please point it out?

Goooh advocated in this very thread for drug testing by private employers to continue, just as it does now. Presumably this means with all the government intrusion and Dept. of Labor regulations currently in force.

I advocate for something different. Real liberty. Just as any EMPLOYEE can currently quit (assuming no contract obligations otherwise) if their EMPLOYER refuses to voluntarily submit to a drug test requested by the EMPLOYEE or if the EMPLOYER tests positive, real liberty would allow employers to require testing of employees at will, with refusal to test or testing positive taken as grounds for immediate dismissal without all the federal government oversight and regulation that currently exists. Libertarians want smaller government and less regulation, right?

Likewise AceArcher has advocated universal healthcare in this very thread. Presumably this means insurance must be provided to all, regardless of their drug use. In contrast, I think the true libertarian position would be that any insurance company can decide to cancel insurance or charge more for drug users.

Please note that I make a distinction between "libertarian" as a political philosophy and "Libertarian" as a US political party.

Nice.... glad to see you came around and managed to disparage me.... I was beginning to lose faith in your skills.

I think if you re-read the actual post that i made you can see that i pretty clearly stated that it was an opinion of mine in which i diverged from the LP parties position...

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I wrote:

Employers and insurers should have complete freedom with regard to their drug testing policies.

AA replied:

Exactly where in the libertarian's platform do you see that they intend to be the new "Thought Police"? Could you please point it out?

Goooh advocated in this very thread for drug testing by private employers to continue, just as it does now. Presumably this means with all the government intrusion and Dept. of Labor regulations currently in force.

I advocate for something different. Real liberty. Just as any EMPLOYEE can currently quit (assuming no contract obligations otherwise) if their EMPLOYER refuses to voluntarily submit to a drug test requested by the EMPLOYEE or if the EMPLOYER tests positive, real liberty would allow employers to require testing of employees at will, with refusal to test or testing positive taken as grounds for immediate dismissal without all the federal government oversight and regulation that currently exists. Libertarians want smaller government and less regulation, right?

Likewise AceArcher has advocated universal healthcare in this very thread. Presumably this means insurance must be provided to all, regardless of their drug use. In contrast, I think the true libertarian position would be that any insurance company can decide to cancel insurance or charge more for drug users.

Please note that I make a distinction between "libertarian" as a political philosophy and "Libertarian" as a US political party.

Wait a second.... "if their EMPLOYER refuses to voluntarily submit to a drug test requested by the EMPLOYEE or if the EMPLOYER tests positive"

Exactly who is taking the drugs here??????????? Those damned pothead employeers!!!!!