[dundarious]

Free market capitalists exist in the world as it is now, which involves a capitalistic state apparatus. Pointing out an alliance, however temporary or opportunistic, between these groups is not sophistry. The piece is describing the world and actions and actors within it, not abstract ideology.

[CryptoPunk]

The author is not merely pointing out an alliance between an alleged free market capitalist and the state. They are drawing broad generalizations from this anecdote about free market capitalists in general. They are also giving a false definition of free market capitalism. You want to argue against the purported freedom of an imagined ideal free market capitalist society? Fine. You want to argue that such an ideal society is impossible to achieve, and will lead to the outcome we see today? Fine. These are debatable points where one can take either position without being clearly deceitful.

But don't characterize violent expropriations of private property by the state, to enrich special interests in the security state, as "free market capitalism". This is pure sophistry/propaganda. And it's shameless/immoral when it comes from someone intelligent enough to know better.

[dundarious]

Where is this characterization made? Is it the comparisons with Goodfellas and The Usual Suspects? I think you’re taking it far more literally than intended. Is it a description of taxes? Sorry, but if so, that’s very funny.

[CryptoPunk]

In the section I quoted:

>>Libertarians would have us believe that unregulated, free-market capitalism is somehow diametrically opposed to state capitalism. One encourages innovation; the other stifles it. What Thiel demonstrates is that unregulated, free-market capitalism is in fact closely aligned to state capitalism. Deregulation means that nothing constrains the monopoly power of the security state and nothing gets in the way of people selling it their bogus and corrupting wares

There is absolutely nothing in the principle that we should not have prohibitons on mutually voluntary interactions, or expropriations of private property from peaceful individuals, that would elicit resistance to the state having rules governing appropriations to ensure tax dollars aren't being wasted. This is such a ridiculous and shameless formulation by the author that it discredits everything else they wrote, and exposes them as an ideologue who puts advancement of their ideological agenda above truth.

[dundarious]

I’m aware of the basics of this school of thought, so I think the fact that I can still genuinely find no trace of “violent expropriations of private property by the state” in that quotation shows who the ideologue is.

[CryptoPunk]

A person with the level of general knowledge that the author exhibits is obviously going to be well aware of libertarianism's stance on taxation.

Most forms of taxation constitute "expropriation of private property by the state", which libertarianism strongly opposes.

And in that passage I quoted from his article, it is funds derived from taxation - since that is the source of all government funding - that the author is alleging libertarianism/free-market-capitalism not only accepts the wasting of, as long as the waste is under the umberage of the government provisioning security services, but also, in its governance philosophy, expressly forbids having any rules to reign in the wasting of. Even spelling out his logic leaves me dumbfounded by its shameless dishonesty and absurdity.

I can't believe I even have to explain this: his claim is completely baseless, with nothing in any mainstream definition of libertarianism to justify it, and moreover, it contradicts one of the core concerns of libertarians/libertarianism, which is the avoidance of inefficiency and waste when expending tax dollars.

The article is an ideological hit piece, and it's crafted in utterly bad faith. But hey, as long as it's supporting the right political tribe, that's evidently okay for some people. The ends justify the means, i.e. bad faith sophistry is justified by the righteousness of the larger cause.

[dundarious]

OK so it is taxes, the thing I said would be funny, and it is.