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.
And how would you stand up to these financial institutions? Just hope they fail and don't get bailed out next time?
Stop participating in them the way that most people do. That means stop participating in debt-based wealth building schemes.
Libertarian Socialism is where libertarianism started.
Libertarianism is just a renamed version of American Revolutionary Liberalism that founded the country.
What are you basing this on? The lack of a modern labor movement? A labor movement would be at odds with these woke corporations
That's not true. Woke corporations are perfectly fine with unions as long as those unions are part of a power sharing arrangement between them and the government. It's the same reason why Corporations will ask for regulation: it solidifies their power and kills competition.
This gets into one of the themes of our conversations: your lack of any consistent or coherent definition of leftism, the left, or any related terms.
I've been more consistent on that than most people I know. Why do you think I keep saying "Leftism is a philosophy of War"?
What constitutes a society or nation state then?
Because I don't want to repeat myself too much, and you could answer most of your deeper questions about by position on nations / nation states here, I'll just tell you I subscribe to Stoessinger's definition which I summarized and quoted in the top of that post, and is comprised of 7 characteristics (IIRC)
Yet libertarianism would produce them.
It does the opposite.
They promote both regulation and deregulation. They promote the maximum amount of freedom for themselves.
I agree mostly with the latter. The thing is that regulation typically grants them more freedom than de-regulation, due to the effect of being unable to be pressured by competition.
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.
Stop participating in them the way that most people do. That means stop participating in debt-based wealth building schemes.
Libertarianism is just a renamed version of American Revolutionary Liberalism that founded the country.
That's not true. Woke corporations are perfectly fine with unions as long as those unions are part of a power sharing arrangement between them and the government. It's the same reason why Corporations will ask for regulation: it solidifies their power and kills competition.
I've been more consistent on that than most people I know. Why do you think I keep saying "Leftism is a philosophy of War"?
Because I don't want to repeat myself too much, and you could answer most of your deeper questions about by position on nations / nation states here, I'll just tell you I subscribe to Stoessinger's definition which I summarized and quoted in the top of that post, and is comprised of 7 characteristics (IIRC)
It does the opposite.
I agree mostly with the latter. The thing is that regulation typically grants them more freedom than de-regulation, due to the effect of being unable to be pressured by competition.