vacuumflower

To think about it ... "major shadow libraries". That's something wrong now.

So - there was a liberal (bourgeois) revolution, there was a labor revolution, and now, I think, we must have another revolution. The word "libertarian" is unfortunately associated with ancap, despite being the same as "anarchist", which is unfortunately associated with ancom. And the word "democratic" has lost any meaning it had.

So they'll have to invent some new term.

But the time is nigh.

This is unreadable, due to German capitalization in English text in part, but also due to pure inadequacy.

I shared my associations with what you said, and then expressed my actual point in one sentence.

The theory of liberaterianism sounds good on paper, but it does not reflect reality.

It's not a theory of how economics work, libertarians rely upon different schools for that. It's a theory of moral substantiation of any social order. That is, how to minimize the amount of "I'm threatening you with a stick, so you admit that I make law, and then we pretend this moment didn't happen and that law existed always and nobody's rights were violated". As is clear, violence and servitude are not accepted by libertarians, while rights are accepted. So it's basically still development of the French revolutionary ideas.

By theory you seem to mean a set of ready instructions. It's not a set of ready instructions like with Stalinist model (and like Khmer Rouge example shows, those too could go far worse than the bloody and inefficient, but supposedly predictable expected result).

The reality is that it is an oligarch ideology aimed at providing polemical cover to corruption and criminality.

No it's not and it isn't. Very easy to call it that now, when the oligarchs themselves "confirm" it, but 10 years ago oligarchs themselves just loved liberal democracies with left traits, because those made laws convenient for them. Your memory seems a bit short.

Perfect freedom of association does not exist in reality. There are informational asymmetries, externalities, natural monopolies (makes no sense two build two set of water pipes to a house) and whole host of other issues.

Yes, it doesn't, but the closer the better usually. Nobody claims it does. Nobody relies upon that.

From my perspective, it’s the same with libertarianism. Lots of pompous musing about freedom, but when it comes down it, it’s just a type of brand of polemics favoured by the American oligarch regime.

I agree with the comparison between Soviet official communism and what some Americans call libertarianism.

The Cato institute solved the problems of externalities? Wow, this is news to me! How did they do it?

I think you might be having hallucinations. I said that they are not trying to do things they are not intended to do. Just work with the model they have and the problems they see.

I know right? Need more style to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsFnLuqHa20

To show the Netherlands their place and to not have Wallonia part of France at the same time, rather. And the Catholic-Protestant problem was real.

Things like that have never disqualified kings, though

those laws are literally anti-natura in that ideas are naturally shared

Bludgeoned heads are pro-natura, but not very good.

is really just a facet of the broader societal problem of politics in Capitalist nations (even those disguised as “Democracy”)

In Democratic Kampuchea, on the other hand, there was no intellectual property. Everything intellectual was forbidden and punishable by death, in fact, even eyeglasses, even knowing how to read and write (except if you were an official, or a railway worker, or an ambassador, or someone similarly necessary).

All you had to do was work, and your Khmer blood would lead you on, all Blut und Boden.

Sorry, just watched The Killing Fields yesterday and remembered of ... that.

Your arguments could be more persuasive if you'd drop that "capitalist vs socialist" stuff, outside of golden billion countries it doesn't work very well.

I've recently refreshed my mind on Khmer Rouge, and have gotten a very nasty feeling that, in a right (wrong) combination of circumstances, my ideological ideas could eventually lead to something like that. Despite being libertarian.

But one thing very notable about them - despite in ideology being frankly very fascist in addition to communist (fascist in a deep sense, the anti-intellectualism, the reliance on emotion, rejection of modernity and complexity, feeling of soil and violence, the almost deified organization, using 12-14 year olds as the main armed force, all that), many things, like their "struggle sessions" and the "quick and radical" solutions, were, one can say, reliant on wide participation and popular approval.

So. An oligarch is a businessman with power bending the law and allowing them to capture, together with other oligarchs, a sphere of the economy.

Oligarchy is not nice, and eventually always leads to authoritarianism (initially oligarchs install their tools at the top of the state, and then eventually those tools become the primary bearers of power and oligarchs their pockets, and then eventually oligarchs are robbed and the relatives and clansmen of the tools own everything).

However, it has nothing to do with libertarianism, because libertarianism is principally based on freedom of association (oligarchy usually involves suppressing unions and customer associations and cooperatives, and suppressing competition ; this also is about freedom of making a deal), non-aggression (understood as oligopoly being aggression in the means to enforce it, and the same about IP and patents) and natural law, the latter being rigid idea of ownership where what you create fully is yours fully, what you didn't create is not yours at all, and the intermediate (real) things being all compromises between these. That notoriously makes owning territory dubious, which, ahem, is not very good for oligarchy.

That's if there's a working system of enforcing such a libertarian order, and if there's none, then it's not libertarianism.

And why did I mention Khmer Rouge - I don't think blaming everything upon oligarchs and such is useful. Most of the people supporting any existing order are not bosses. If a society has oligarchy, then this means its wide masses are in general in favor of morality of oligarchy (who managed to capture a portion of an industry, deserves to milk it forever, and who managed to capture an institution regulating it, deserves the spoils, and so on), just like wide masses of Khmer peasants were more or less in agreement with that party's ideas, until, of course, it became fully empowered.

It's a failure of education, and I don't think libertarianism is a component in that failure, after all, Kato institute is one of the organizations which haven't ideologically drifted and just do what they are openly intended to do - provide the libertarian perspective on any events. Not drifting into lies in attempt to secure support is something I'd consider a good commendation. Maybe carriers of other ideologies should look at how that was achieved and build their own similar institutions. Then at some point problems might start being resolved by people knowing what they are doing.

From the perspective of a Russian you don't know what you are talking about.

And no, you can’t convince them to switch messager, I tried.

Have you used the gambling addiction and honeypot comparisons?

Or opium smoking in China one?

If somebody makes a functioning NOSTR client similar to Telegram in experience - maybe that will be convenient enough.

That's not what "libertarian utopia" is. Also Ayn Rand is not libertarian, more like fascist.

They want a "thief feudalism", it's a different thing. Libertarianism involves rights and freedom of association, while these people want sort of a mafia world.

Every time you think of something and don't understand why it happens, it does good to ask about every neighboring assumption "what if not".

Why am I saying this?

Because AGI created this way is impractical and economically useless, that's fundamental. One can even say "elementary".

What if they are not trying to create AGI?

What if they are not trying to make money?

What if they want a bubble burst, not fear it, and want it to be as big as the sky, so that Western economies would crumble and their surveillance systems were the only thing standing, together with other functioning machines?

From the answers depends the optimal strategy for other parties, suppose, maybe turning their Big Beautiful Bubble Burst into just another dot-com bubble, via adoption of this technology for actually useful applications, is something we should strive towards.