Governments let corporations censor the hell out of things, for example.
Corporations that exist at the behest of the state's legal protections, tax cuts, subsidies, federal programs, and information sharing.
Governments let Nickelodeon groom children, a state of affairs you have defended.
That's a lie. I don't even talk about Nickelodeon.
Our immigration laws are corporate friendly, for example, and you libertarians still can't get your shit together on immigration.
Nope, the answer on that is clear because property requires a border. "Pro-Business" and "Pro-Market" policies are in direct conflict with one another. "Corporations should be allowed to form plantation colonies in the US" is not a Libertarian positions. It is a Corporatist position, which is Leftist.
Anyone who argues that they stand for Libertarianism and demands open borders and corporate oligarchy is as much of a Libertarian as a "Libertarian Socialist"... which is to say: not.
Wouldn't mind it. Sole Proprietorships all the way down since corporate structures are merely legal constructions to limit liability and consequences.
Do you wish for the government to step in and stop their child grooming?
I wish for people to stop it. Adults aren't eager to have their kids consume this, people are pushing it. Specifically massive financial institutions that are protected and in league with many aspects of the government.
. I've never seen anything approaching a consensus.
Libertarians don't have a vanguard, they don't organize well, and that's part of an intentional conditioning to keep Libertarians from acting out. Libertarian principles already mean to focus on protecting you and yours by succeeding, so any shill or grifter can call himself a libertarian while disregarding every possible aspect of any Libertarian or Liberal philosophy. This is what a "Socialist Libertarian" is: a liar.
Milton Friedman's argument is to a room of effectively Leftists, frankly, so is Hayek's. I've personally condemned them for being tolerant of what the Left was doing, but the Left was more in power than than it is even now. Nobody would have said to Unions in the 1960's. No one wanted to break up the cartel industries, especially not the Socialists because it was their cartels.
Open borders within a society is reasonable. Otherwise the state is interfering on your ability to trade with your own neighbors. However, outside threats exist no matter how your frame it. Borders must exist in some way, it's not even an option to say no.
That's not clear at all. Are you referring to a country as "property" ?
One of the only reasons a state should exist at all is to protect the property rights of it's citizens. That includes from invasion and colonization. Hence, why you need a border.
Oligarchs love libertarianism, though.
Oligarchs are antithetical to libertarianism. Oligarchs despise libertarianism, that's why they promote regulation and government involvement.
Corporations that exist at the behest of the state's legal protections, tax cuts, subsidies, federal programs, and information sharing.
That's a lie. I don't even talk about Nickelodeon.
Nope, the answer on that is clear because property requires a border. "Pro-Business" and "Pro-Market" policies are in direct conflict with one another. "Corporations should be allowed to form plantation colonies in the US" is not a Libertarian positions. It is a Corporatist position, which is Leftist.
Anyone who argues that they stand for Libertarianism and demands open borders and corporate oligarchy is as much of a Libertarian as a "Libertarian Socialist"... which is to say: not.
Wouldn't mind it. Sole Proprietorships all the way down since corporate structures are merely legal constructions to limit liability and consequences.
I wish for people to stop it. Adults aren't eager to have their kids consume this, people are pushing it. Specifically massive financial institutions that are protected and in league with many aspects of the government.
Libertarians don't have a vanguard, they don't organize well, and that's part of an intentional conditioning to keep Libertarians from acting out. Libertarian principles already mean to focus on protecting you and yours by succeeding, so any shill or grifter can call himself a libertarian while disregarding every possible aspect of any Libertarian or Liberal philosophy. This is what a "Socialist Libertarian" is: a liar.
Milton Friedman's argument is to a room of effectively Leftists, frankly, so is Hayek's. I've personally condemned them for being tolerant of what the Left was doing, but the Left was more in power than than it is even now. Nobody would have said to Unions in the 1960's. No one wanted to break up the cartel industries, especially not the Socialists because it was their cartels.
Open borders within a society is reasonable. Otherwise the state is interfering on your ability to trade with your own neighbors. However, outside threats exist no matter how your frame it. Borders must exist in some way, it's not even an option to say no.
One of the only reasons a state should exist at all is to protect the property rights of it's citizens. That includes from invasion and colonization. Hence, why you need a border.
Oligarchs are antithetical to libertarianism. Oligarchs despise libertarianism, that's why they promote regulation and government involvement.