The pairing of "Libertarianism and Authoritarianism" in the title is a striking contradiction in terms. Libertarianism, by definition, champions individual liberty and opposes the initiation of force for political ends—core tenets that clash with authoritarianism’s reliance on coercion and centralized control. This juxtaposition feels like ideological sleight-of-hand, possibly aimed at tarnishing libertarian ideals rather than grappling with their substance. What’s odder still is the authors’ apparent alarm over Musk’s alleged "authoritarian" turn, while they seem to gloss over or excuse leftist authoritarianism—like government overreach or cultural enforcement—that Musk has vocally opposed. If the concern is power consolidation, why the selective critique? It suggests a deeper agenda here, one less about principle and more about targeting a figure who challenges their preferred narratives.

for - quote - Life is a war and only the strongest warriors survive. Compassion with the weak is a luxury, which neither Fascists nor Libertarians can afford. - article - Guido Palazzo

comment - This is a self-fulfilling prophecy that models one aspect of life - the fact that living beings must compete for resources with other living beings to survive - It ignores the other side, the cooperative and altruistic side - It ignores the intertwingledness of self and other - the individual / collective gestalts - It ignores the fundamental altruism of the mother in assuring their own survival in the world - the mOTHER, the Most significant OTHER

Heute ist die Frage, ob dieser politische Ansatz sich in eine Zeit der ökologischenKatastrophen oder Degradation übertragen lässt. Kann man den libertären Munizipalismus auch als Strategie gegen die Dominanz fossiler Machtrguppen formulieren? Oder sind unsere Bedingungen heute so anders, dass man mit diesem Versuch in lange vergangenen Debatten verharren würde.

• for: false dichotomy of sustaining modernity

• paraphrase

  • The pace of modernity can neither be sustained in a high carbon nor a low carbon green economy
  • No matter what the political party, they all subscribe to a view of sustaining the same or greater pace of modernity

• comment

  • libertarians want no constraints
  • but nature herself imposes limits
  • populations collapse if resources are overused
  • human populations who adopt a Libertarian approach eventually encounter a limit anyways

• Comment
• related to the previous comment on limits

• Comment
• This is pretty obvious that living within society means abiding by laws, but still shockingly ignored by many, especially of the libertarian persuasion.

...and by ignoring the human beings they are murdering, denying them the very "respect and dignity to which every human is entitled" - except the one in her womb.

I'd like to see those stats, but regardless, murder (which "abortion" is) is already banned everywhere, and it still happens at an alarming rate. This fact is no reason to legalize or tolerate it in any way - ESPECIALLY if one fancies themselves a Libertarian who is sworn to uphold the Non-aggression Principle.

It disproportionately affects the unborn human being who had no say in the matter before being murdered.

...except the aborted ones who die in a trash can of medical waste and are dismembered and incinerated.

I wouldn't choose that over adoption.

We know it is appropriate to use Government force to prevent murder, because the Just Powers Clause of The Declaration of Independence explains that individuals can justly delegate powers to the Government that they have.

You and I may all justly defend ourselves and others against murder, so this is a power we all have. This is how we know that it is one of the rare powers that can justly be granted to Government.

This applies to the unborn human in the womb as well - even more so since they have yet to develop the capacity to resist attempted murder. It is the duty of those who can resist to do so for them.

Except that intentional "termination of a pregnancy" violates the NAP of the unborn human, which is why people evade this by claiming that unborn humans are not alive (when they objectively are), or that they magically become human when they exit the birth canal or the abdomen via Cesarian section.

Murder is not a right, so it cannot be a reproductive right.

It's not a nuanced issue. The LP is in error when it ignores that abortion is a clear and obvious violation of the Zero-aggression Principle.

It is the pre-meditated murder of helpless unborn humans, and since the LP objects to murder in other situations, they must reject it in this one as well.

This is true though, specifically it fits the definition of murder since it involves the premeditated killing of one human being by another.

One can play word games about whether or not unborn humans are "babies" - but they most likely will be if not murdered. Also, the definition of murder doesn't require one to be born first - only that one be a unique human being. We can detect the presence of a "unique human being" with blood samples from the mother.

This ignores the bodily autonomy of the helpless unborn human in her womb who had less say than the woman in being there.

Milkman, K. L., Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., & Madrian, B. C. (2011). Using implementation intentions prompts to enhance influenza vaccination rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(26), 10415–10420. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1103170108

Nikiforuk, A. (2020, October 28). ‘Herd Immunity’ Is an Inviting Idea but Terrible Policy. The Tyee. https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2020/10/28/Herd-Immunity-Inviting-Idea-Terrible-Policy/?utm_source=weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=021120

Polly Toynbee. (2021, January 4). This shows how tiny and irrelevant the libertarian/anti-mask/freedomloving/Coviddeniers are: Media shld ignore them and those crazed MPs.Shameful PM waits for YouGov poll to tell him what to do, too many deaths later. [Tweet]. @pollytoynbee. https://twitter.com/pollytoynbee/status/1346148556936273920

ReconfigBehSci. (2021, February 10). "Trying to appease both public health demands and the libertarian views of the free market has led not only to astronomical death tolls, such as in the US, UK, and Brazil, but to flailing economies. " 2/3 [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1359427735022694405

Wenham, C. (2021). What went wrong in the global governance of covid-19? BMJ, 372, n303. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n303

ReconfigBehSci. (2021, February 10). "Trying to appease both public health demands and the libertarian views of the free market has led not only to astronomical death tolls, such as in the US, UK, and Brazil, but to flailing economies. " 2/3 [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1359427735022694405

To me, this seems to be a very libertarian view. Locke see's the chief end as being the extension of property and political freedom, with a group of people who consent to being governed while also having the right to their own freedom and property.