[CryptoPunk]

Can you elaborate, by reiterating my argument back to me, and pointing out to me where I did what you allege, instead of evading with these vague, glib one-liners?

No of course not. You'll continue hiding behind these bad-faith quips.

[dundarious]

Same as it was in my original comment, the author is not describing abstract ideology, except as minor background -- he's describing real people doing real things in real situations. He's speaking of lowercase-ell libertarians in the political sphere, and what ideological adaptations they've made for personal gain.

Hacking away at the state's budget, but with an extreme focus on the welfare and regulatory side, all while seeking contracts from the military industrial complex for tasks that have nothing to do with capital-ell Libertarian tasks like enforcing the NAP.

[CryptoPunk]

>>he's describing real people doing real things in real situations

He is describing what he claims "unregulated free market capitalism" produces:

>>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

I've described in detail why this claim is absurd. Just to touch back on those for a moment: the "deregulation" has nothing to do with the security state. It doesn't mean a lack of laws constraining what the state can do. The term refers exclusively to an absence of regulatory restrictions on voluntary economic interactions between consenting private actors. Not lack of restrictions on the state and its procurement processes.

You're welcome to contend with my arguments, which I've elaborated on in detail, when you decide you want to have a meaningful exchange of arguments.

[dundarious]

Again, in that quotation he’s really describing what “actually existing proponents of free market capitalism” are doing in reality — practicing a form of heterodoxy that is common within the community. The article barely spends any time discussing philosophy, so I think it’s irrational to elevate his critique to that level. He’s discussing a biography after all.

[CryptoPunk]

First of all, he's generalizing from an anecdote of one, which is intellectually lazy and morally reckless, when it results in a negative characterization of a large set of diverse individuals who share the trait of being free market capitalists.

Second, in the quote, he refers to "unregulated free market capitalism" not just "capitalists", and describes what it, as a political and economic doctrine, allows, and his description is unambiguously false.

It's a hit job. It's intellectually dishonest and not fair to the target.

>>He’s discussing a biography after all.

Yes, but in that excerpt, he clearly makes a claim about "unregulated free market capitalism". An individual in his position, writing for a highly reputed publication, has a moral and professional responsibility to not make false claims, even as a side-note in a piece about a different subject from the claim.