I don’t agree with the assessment on slavery because in that system nobody would have the authority to sell another person in the first place. Although I suppose you could sell yourself and have indentured servitude.

The issue is that, without protections, do people really get a choice? If all land is owned by the owner class and you need food, water, and shelter for you and your family to survive, and there is authority ensuring you can’t make use of things you don’t own, what choice do you have? You can die or you can work for the owners.

It’s really not that different to today (what many will call wage slavery), except without protections they’ll force you to sign a contract ensuring you can’t work anywhere else without their permission. Without competition, they can force you to do whatever they want. You will “willingly” sign away your right to bodily autonomy because they won’t give you necessities unless you do.

Edit and I guess I’m going to get all “no true scottsman” over here and say a libertarian that doesn’t believe in liberty and freedom isn’t a libertarian at all. But thanks for explaining it a bit.

They believe in certain liberties and freedoms. You can’t believe in all of them because some are exclusive. Do you have the liberty to own slaves or does someone else have the liberty to never be owned? Do you have the liberty to rape a minor or do they have liberty to not have them happen to them?

The name sounds great. However, liberty for some comes at the cost of liberty for others. If someone has the liberty to have authority of others, they’re depriving those others of their own liberty.