This is some very weak libertarianism. First, he should not be recognizing that any country at all should have sovereignty over anything. Second, he should not accept that anything is 'non-negotiable'. And third, this conflict of interest is more than 40 years old at this point, and showing any kind of enthusiastic interest in something that old goes against the very founding idea of libertarianism.

A true libertarian would argue that the Falklands should be the sovereign territory of the highest bidding private investor and that everything is negotiable. And they would reserve their passionate interest for Snapchat, which turns 12 this year.

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The dude is a real terrible an-cap He's against abortions, but pro-child-slavery (I understand that this is typical libertarian shit, but like in theory they should be pro choice)

[–] Lemmygradwontallowme@hexbear.net 12 points 11 months ago

“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...”

tl;dr: The right wing co-opted libertarianism for its own ends...