[wpietri]

You made a good job presenting that particular dogma, but you gave the game away here:

> not coercing others or violating their property rights

Property rights always involve coercion, at least when you get beyond the basics of personal property. How does, say, Jeff Bezos own a variety of lavish properties across the country [1] when a half-million people in the US are homeless?

The short answer is that he depends on coercion. He expects that both private and state actors will coerce people into staying away from stuff he has claimed. Violently if necessary. And we're not even getting into the many flavors of coercion that underlie his enormous wealth.

The fundamentalist libertarian position always ends up in these sorts of incoherencies, because it makes ardent demands of a society it wants no part of otherwise.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-owns-five-massive...

[aww_dang]

Property rights are a fundamental cornerstone of society. Rejecting them is incoherent. Infringing on another person's property is synonymous with coercion. Perhaps next you'll venture that self-defense is a bourgeois construct?

As for Amazon, maybe look more closely at the government interventions in the financial markets. Yes, Bezos is an entrepreneurial figure. He is also symptomatic of an artificially supported economic system. The central bank injects liquidity. Financial markets acquire it first, and consumers are left with the inflation.

I would argue that large concerns like Amazon are enabled by the current paradigm. We could describe it as a tax by other means and price fixing of interest rates.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/amazon-borrows-%2410-billion...

[wpietri]

You've constructed a straw man (I never rejected property rights) while ignoring my actual point. This tendentious behavior is typical of fundamentalists, fundamentalist libertarians included. Unless you can do better, I think we're done here.

[aww_dang]

Bezos owns property, therefore he is coercing others. You conflate voluntary exchange and private ownership with coercion. It is fundamentally nonsense. You'll have to forgive me for having a hard time with this, it seems to be a terrible stretch.

As for libertarianism, observing that adds no more to the conversation than me calling you a socialist, statist or authoritarian.