[image: a5d1fa33-286e-4bad-8bfc-ca7e54ab7cee.jpeg] [image: bb003394-012f-4414-a713-a8883e6ce261.jpeg] [image: 31529708-b6a0-4e32-bfb3-d2c2dad20c9c.jpeg] [image: 108ededb-1891-4bf7-8acc-a4ae2b7da509.jpeg] [image: 46176547-f36f-45db-a1e4-5e73f8de297e.jpeg] [image: 3c41ddb4-f7e6-45c1-a141-b24e83c7aabc.jpeg] Are you fucking kidding me? Ro Khanna bought $8000 of Palantir Technologies Inc (PLTR:US) on 2025-04-23 Beyond pouring into the streets, Americans can also boycott the corporations living large while the population of Palestine dwindles. Or protest by saying one thing publicly and profiting from genocide privately. Perhaps the most hypocritical offenders are the members of the Magnificent Seven. I think there might actually be someone more deserving of that title.

I did not understand half of what you've written. But what do I need to get this running on my home PC?

I switched to Deezer!

Smells like intentional destruction of evidence.

You know, Im not certain, but I think the job of being a cunty CFO could be done by AI... Are you listening Microshaft?

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.)

This is just wrong ans needs more nuance. https://medium.com/@ovenplayer/does-proton-really-support-trump-a-deeper-analysis-and-surprising-findings-aed4fee4305e