Don't libertarians argue that the vast majority of people ought to be wage-slaves? On the question of duties and rights, we also have a duty to give to the poor. Does that mean that the poor have a right to my money? Someone having a duty to do something does not imply that I have some sort of "right" inhering in my nature that obligates him to fulfill that duty.
Choosing to work for a wage does not make one a slave. In a free market society, people have the freedom to choose how to earn a living.
But most people don't really choose to work for a wage. It isn't a choice for them. It's just the way things are.
There is no natural law "duty" to give to the poor, which is an act of charity and mercy.
But why should we limit it to the natural law? Charity is a command of the divine law, which is no less binding than the natural law. So, if a duty always implies a natural right then I don't see why the poor would not have an obligation to charity. Plus, the Social Kingship of Christ and all that, right?
The State has rights but individuals don't? There's Hobbes Leviathan for you. What's to stop the overlords from imprisoning or killing wealthy people and distributing their property for the "common good"?
Hobbes was a proto-liberal, you know. The theory of natural rights and his theory of sovereignty, adopted by liberals, allowed the state to expand far beyond the limits set for it in the Middle Ages, so from an historical perspective liberalism has not even managed to live up to its promise to restrict the state. Before rights, states were restricted by divine, natural, and human law, by custom, and by a complex social space. This was far more effective than rights claims, which actually expand the power of the state by bringing it into regular contact with all of its citizens.