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

I would argue that's part of the (unfortunate) effectiveness of libertarianism as an oligarch polemic.

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.

Can't speak for Khemer Rouge, but I agree that oligarchy is not some sort of isolated element and it is a reflection of challenges within a society.

The theory of libertarianism sounds good on paper, but it does not reflect reality. The reality is that it is an oligarch ideology aimed at providing polemical cover to corruption and criminality.

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.

It's like with communism, good in theory, but the individuals who went about implementing it all turned out to be brutal and authoritarian.

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.

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

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.

Violence and historical conceptions of servitude aren't the only way to violate rights. Rejection of externalities does not require violence or servitude; yet it is arguably a fundamental aspect of libertarianism.

I don't mean specific instructions, I am talking about philosophical perspectives too. Perfect freedom of association does not exist in a universe (reality) with externalities.

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.

I would disagree, be it in the American context or in other countries. In other countries, oligarchs don't bother since libertarian polemics aren't the best tool for the job. I lived in the US under Bush and Obama, I can't say that US oligarchs from the time "just loved liberal democracies with left traits".

"It's a war," Schwarzman, [chairman and cofounder of the Blackstone Group], said of the struggle with the administration over increasing taxes on private-equity firms. "It's like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939."

Some other examples come to mind (no web searches, just going from memory).

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

While on a general level, I agree that "the closer the better", individuals who associate with libertarianism almost universally reject personal responsibility by leveraging polemics about "free" association.

Even casually opening the Cato website (did it as an experiment), reveals a clear disregard for reality and tons of open corporate propaganda. Demagoguery; undeniably pre-meditated dishonesty.

Rejection of externalities does not require violence or servitude; yet it is arguably a fundamental aspect of libertarianism.

No, it's not, this is factually incorrect.

You seem to be in denial that some ideologies start from a desired society to imagining whatever criteria will fit to practical means, like yours, and some, like libertarian ones, start from a set of desired criteria to imagining different possible desired societies and value sets and practical means fitting them. You seem pretend instead that libertarianism is too like the former ideologies, but with something you don't like as the desired point.

Also even typical ancap doesn't ignore externalia. Air pollution, for example, is considered. You might just not know what the flying fuck you are talking about, thinking it's "something-something absolute property rights".

I lived in the US under Bush and Obama, I can’t say that US oligarchs from the time “just loved liberal democracies with left traits”.

In rhetoric of course they did, just like in rhetoric they like libertarianism now. I don't need anything more, because you haven't provided anything more.

Some other examples come to mind (no web searches, just going from memory).

Facebook and Google and Apple and Microsoft are the oligarchies I was thinking about.

individuals who associate with libertarianism almost universally reject personal responsibility by leveraging polemics about “free” association.

This is a word salad. The whole point of libertarianism is that responsibility can't be delegated. It's just that to demand some things from others is not in your right, but that's not about their responsibility, that's about you making weird demands.

Even casually opening the Cato website (did it as an experiment), reveals a clear disregard for reality and tons of open corporate propaganda. Demagoguery; undeniably pre-meditated dishonesty.

What is this intended to say?

I said it's a good institution because it still does what it's intended to do - provides libertarian perspective on events without drift.

I didn't say you'll find things you won't call these cliches. Their purpose is not in being liked by you or in any way delivering upon your desires what they should and shouldn't say.

I've just visited their site and read their articles on a few random popular questions - surveillance, "hate speech", "AI".

I frankly felt much better from their sober tone. This (https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/misleading-panic-over-misinformation) article is perfect , it explains patiently and in non-agitated terms what I sometimes try to say about how some problems should be resolved.

(It, eh, doesn't touch upon some bigger threats like Google and others not really intending to ever further compete, but that has happened in the past and many of those companies are no longer around.)

Libertarianism does not involve rights and freedoms. It involves pretend rights and freedoms, with a ruleset that guarantees they will be lost

It doesn't involve anything other than rights and freedoms. There's simply no space for you not being a bullshitting leftie jerk here.

Call it word salad, mashed potatoes or Peruvian causa, makes no difference to me.

The fact remains that libertarianism is an American oligarch polemical strategy aimed at enabling corruption and keeping local plebs in line (because Americans respond particularly well to certain keywords and copytext).

Denying that doesn't give you much credibility! Just think for a second how it makes you look!

I saw all I needed by clicking a random article on the Cato's frontpage. It's is clear that they are demagogues and malicious.

And I am willing to bet if we look at their funding, it is all run by oligarch/criminal groups.

I am not going to deny basic facts about life "follow the money" based on some half assed rehortic.

We good?