Rejection of externalities does not require violence or servitude; yet it is arguably a fundamental aspect of libertarianism.
No, it’s not, this is factually incorrect.
You seem to be in denial that some ideologies start from a desired society to imagining whatever criteria will fit to practical means, like yours, and some, like libertarian ones, start from a set of desired criteria to imagining different possible desired societies and value sets and practical means fitting them. You seem pretend instead that libertarianism is too like the former ideologies, but with something you don’t like as the desired point.
Also even typical ancap doesn’t ignore externalia. Air pollution, for example, is considered. You might just not know what the flying fuck you are talking about, thinking it’s “something-something absolute property rights”.
I lived in the US under Bush and Obama, I can’t say that US oligarchs from the time “just loved liberal democracies with left traits”.
In rhetoric of course they did, just like in rhetoric they like libertarianism now. I don’t need anything more, because you haven’t provided anything more.
Some other examples come to mind (no web searches, just going from memory).
Facebook and Google and Apple and Microsoft are the oligarchies I was thinking about.
individuals who associate with libertarianism almost universally reject personal responsibility by leveraging polemics about “free” association.
This is a word salad. The whole point of libertarianism is that responsibility can’t be delegated. It’s just that to demand some things from others is not in your right, but that’s not about their responsibility, that’s about you making weird demands.
Even casually opening the Cato website (did it as an experiment), reveals a clear disregard for reality and tons of open corporate propaganda. Demagoguery; undeniably pre-meditated dishonesty.
What is this intended to say?
I said it’s a good institution because it still does what it’s intended to do - provides libertarian perspective on events without drift.
I didn’t say you’ll find things you won’t call these cliches. Their purpose is not in being liked by you or in any way delivering upon your desires what they should and shouldn’t say.
I’ve just visited their site and read their articles on a few random popular questions - surveillance, “hate speech”, “AI”.
I frankly felt much better from their sober tone. This (cato.org/…/misleading-panic-over-misinformation) article is perfect , it explains patiently and in non-agitated terms what I sometimes try to say about how some problems should be resolved.
(It, eh, doesn’t touch upon some bigger threats like Google and others not really intending to ever further compete, but that has happened in the past and many of those companies are no longer around.)
Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Call it word salad, mashed potatoes or Peruvian causa, makes no difference to me.
The fact remains that libertarianism is an American oligarch polemical strategy aimed at enabling corruption and keeping local plebs in line (because Americans respond particularly well to certain keywords and copytext).
Denying that doesn’t give you much credibility! Just think for a second how it makes you look!
I saw all I needed by clicking a random article on the Cato’s frontpage. It’s is clear that they are demagogues and malicious.
And I am willing to bet if we look at their funding, it is all run by oligarch/criminal groups.
I am not going to deny basic facts about life “follow the money” based on some half assed rehortic.
We good?