When she said he "choked"

[Cassius Clay]

I'm glancing over Michael Tracy's Twitter, dude seems like a closet Trump supporter. He keeps bringing out all these Trump supporters and chastising anyone who makes fun of them. Seems to have a problem with Hillary calling them deplorables. He used to support Jim Webb, lol. Whatever. What a moron. Also your examples, although I can't find anything on them.

Glenn Greenwald is not on the left. He's a right-wing libertarian. To the extent that he has any consistent beliefs. Which he doesn't, except beliefs in his own super-importance.

Where are you getting that Greenwald is a right-wing libertarian? A lot of folks are under the impression that he's a leftist, others say that's because he merely poses as a leftist, and apparently he himself has denied that he is a right-wing libertarian. Tracey is a huge Greenwald fanboy and folks see them very similarly.

[Boomer]

What is your definition of libertarian?

Speaking generally, from what I've read libertarianism has two main tenets: adherence to a non-aggression principle (often referred to as the NAP) and that natural rights are derived from personal property rights.

The NAP is fairly self-explanatory, you're not allowed to use aggressive force on anyone.

The theory that natural rights are derived from personal property rights comes from the idea that a person owns their mind, by extension they own their body, by extension they own their labor, by extension they own the fruits of their labor, etc.

Both these tenets theoretically promote volunteerism and free association, which is why one society could be capitalist and the other socialist and both be libertarian; as long as every individual is participating of their own free will without force or coercion then have at it.

This is where the idea of small/limited government or downright anarchism comes into play, as government is basically viewed as an entity that exists by nothing but force and coercion.

Discuss!

[Derived Absurdity]

@Cash, private accumulation of capital (sole proprietors and small businesses) will inevitably lead to larger concentrations of capital. That's the whole point, to grow your business. Small businesses want to become big businesses. At the beginning there were sole proprietors and merchants, but accumulating capital allowed them to get bigger and more powerful over the centuries until you got industrialists and robber barons and eventually WalMarts who are able to push around the government. That's what happens, they get bigger and take over everything, because their nature is to accumulate capital and capital is power. All capitalism will eventually degenerate into "corporate capitalism".

@Cassius, well, he supported Citizens United, and he framed corporations like Google and Apple as heroes/victims standing up against the big bad government during the NSA leaks spectacle for a while, instead of accurately pointing out that they were colluding together. He has rhetorically supported creepy libertarian Silicon Valley billionaires like Peter Thiel in the past, and he works under the hire of Pierre Omidyar, one of the creepiest ones. I don't really care what he calls himself; I just infer what he is from his words. But mostly I think he's just a political chameleon; like I said he doesn't have any explicit political beliefs as far as I can tell. He just does whatever serves himself best in the moment.

@Boomer, I think libertarians have a very constricted and naive view of "freedom", "force", "coercion", and so on. There are multiple ways to hurt or harm someone that would technically fall outside of the non-aggression principle. And socialist libertarians would very forcefully argue against the idea that capitalism isn't coercive; you're coerced under capitalism to work for a wage and subject yourself to the ruthless impersonal whims of the market. You're not "free" to work in any meaningful sense of the word, anymore than you're "free" to give someone your wallet when he has a gun pointed at you. And some of the more radical libertarian socialists (anarchists) would argue that private property "rights" are actually the foundation of most oppressive structures currently, since private property was originally expropriated by force and was used to oppress the proletariat (as it is now), with the help of the state. The state may exist through force/coercion, but so does capitalism, which is based on private property which is ultimately protected by the state.