Quote Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable View Post
This particular sentence disturbs me. You're saying then, that you have a right to someone else's labor. Which I can see how someone would be in agreement with, but that certainly isn't freedom.
Would you then argue that people have no right to, say, police protection against criminals (which is provided by the labor of policemen), or military protection against foreign invasion (which is provided by the labor of soldiers)? These are two things that even the most hardline libertarians usually accept as legitimate functions of government. Would you say that the provision of these services "certainly isn't freedom"?