They’re all funded by the Kochs and their ilk, including the groovy young leather-jackets-and-weed crowd at Reason.
In the end, every faction in the movement is united by and in service to the sugar daddies’ core (and thoroughly discredited) agenda that ultra-wealthy real humans should not have to pay their fair share of taxes and that ultra-wealthy fictional humans (i.e. corporations) should not be subject to regulation. Some factions may be more overt with bigotry and anti-Semitism, some may try to focus more on drug decriminalisation and de-militarising the cops, but those amount to petty differences in the larger scheme of Libertarianism.
None of the anti–Mises Caucus delegates or supporters that I have spoken to at the convention—including people from Illinois, Florida, Texas, Massachusetts, and even Mises stronghold New Hampshire—said that this takeover would make them walk.
With such great ideas, I can’t understand why they need anything or anyone else, besides The Marketplace, to prop them up.
I suppose their response would be that they have no other choice than to accept altruistic subsidies. If it weren’t for those meddling bureaucrats &/or woke-types*, they wouldn’t need to be propped up, and a free & unfettered Reason magazine would be self-sufficient.
*Presumably so strong &/or nefarious that not even superior intellect can overcome their barriers
As of approximately a week or two ago, the FTX guy, as a billionaire cryptobro mogul with pretensions to altruism, would have been held up as a Galt-level paragon of libertarian values. Now that his billions have vanished and his business exposed as a ponzi scheme, he is suddenly the “dirty jew” in some international cabal. The rapidity of this shift shows just how thin the libertarian veneer of unfettered-capitalism-as-enlightenment is over the core of good old fashioned bigotry motivating the ideology.
Well, yeah. What libertarians have traditionally argued for is a split between “positive” and “negative” rights. The government deciding whether black people can or can’t live somewhere is bad. Private citizens making it impossible for black people to live and work somewhere is fine, that’s just the market, in the end market incentives should fix it or whatever.
Needless to say I don’t think it’s actually a sensible distinction at all…but this isn’t even that. The government are actually the bad guys on this one. And yet.
The Agorists seem to have mostly left the Libertarian Party though, and are trying to take over the (socialist) anarchist online spaces where they are continually reminded that they are not in a capitalism friendly space and asked to “go somewhere else, please?”
Actually the government are the bad guys in both. Since they are protecting private citizens who want to exclude people from living and working. Segregation of private business required force of law. A free and open market disfavors discrimination as artificially limiting potential customers.
And is an unambiguously GOOD thing. State backing for smashing white supremacy and fascism is the sort of thing the state SHOULD be doing, because it provides MORE freedom for MORE people. That’s the problem with the libertarian position over all, of course.
Libertarians generally speaking DO support use of force to protect their economic interests. They believe that private property is sacrosanct, and that’s the ONLY legitimate role of federal government - defending property rights. Defending human rights is not considered legitimate by libertarians.
I’ve heard that but I could also believe it would reflect the biases of its participants. Honestly I don’t really know. The question of what a market would look like if nobody was setting up rules seems like nonsense to me, like asking how a person would act if nobody raised them.