Maybe anti-poor is a better description? Could also be that I only notice the assholes and the milder form of libertarians just don't stick out as much :)

> Maybe anti-poor is a better description?

No. Libertarians are against any sort of class system (i.e. legal privileges for certain groups). They are neither anti-rich nor anti-poor. Of course, there are libertarians who are jerks, but that isn't what Libertarianism is about. Also, most people only hear about Libertarianism from non-Libertarians, hence they only hear negative things about it.

Libertarianism is mainly about people being free to choose, and being responsible for their choices, as long as they aren't hurting others in the process.

Milton Friedman's book "Free to Choose" is a good introduction if you're interested in more.

AnarchoCaps always came across to me as being based around "Free to choose... if you are rich"

The process of making sure people aren't hurting others is called "government" and "regulation", which self-professed Libertarians appear to be against. They say things like "the FDA is stupid, the free market will sort it out" - when the FDA was created because the free market was killing people.

Vis a vis classism, if you refuse to regulate and allow everyone to be "free to choose", you are essentially advocating a dog-eat-dog world where people with money and power consolidate more and more of it. This is "feudalism" and it generally results in a raw deal for the poor.

> which self-professed Libertarians appear to be against.

That's conflating Anarchists with Libertarians. Libertarians are not Anarchists.

Feudalism is something different altogether.

> Libertarians are not Anarchists.

Unless with "libertarians" you are referring to ancaps, this is just false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Rise_of_anarchi...

Libertarianism relies on government to enforce peoples' rights. Anarchism is fundamentally different.

>Milton Friedman's book "Free to Choose" is a good introduction if you're interested in more.

At some point you have to acknowledge the irony at refusing to see Libertarianism as anti-poor ideology, while simultaneously pointing people to a man who worked (and trained others to work with at the University if Chicago) far right dictators like Pinochet.

I'll just refer you to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/6i0vsr/milton_f...

(Ironically, you say Libertarian Friedman supported far right dictator Pinochet and the other reply says Libertarianism is for no government at all. Clearly something is amiss with these two criticisms of Libertarianism.)

Eh, I’ll take Allende’s ambassador, Orlando Letelier’s, word on the matter over a bunch of apologists on a subreddit (who largely and laughably quote what Friedman and his buddies said was there involvement). Letelier was killed by agents of Pinochet for saying as much:

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-chicago-boys-in-chile-...

What's your take on dTal's assessment that libertarians are for no government at all?

If you have any evidence of advocacy for repression in any of Friedman's lifetime of his books, articles, or lectures, I'd like to see it.

It seems a wrong conflation of Libertarianism and Anarchism.

I already pointed you to one of Allende’s chief advisors identifying Friedman as providing the direct, ideological grounding for the Chilean coup, so I’m not sure what more evidence you want. What Friedman said in his speeches and wrote in books is not the sum total of his work and ideology. There’s also what he did, who he allied himself with, etc. He was remarkably consistent in denouncing his detractors as part of a “communist conspiracy,” while at the same time being remarkably callous about things like the apartheid regime in South Africa and the Tiennamen Square massacre. So I find appeals to him as some undaunted supporter of “freedom” specious at best.

> I already pointed you to one of Allende’s chief advisors identifying Friedman as providing the direct, ideological grounding for the Chilean coup, so I’m not sure what more evidence you want.

Something from Friedman himself, not filtered through hearsay. Friedman has a very large body of work you can draw from. If he's a fascist, you should be able to find it in that work.

I don’t think Friedman was a fascist. I think he was a sophist who had no problem working with or lending support to fascists when he thought it served his interests and ingratiated him to him to elites in the economic and political milieu in which he operated.

Again, on the one hand you have someone who fled Chile and was murdered by the Pinochet regime and someone who flew into give speeches and pal around with the junta. I’m sorry if I weigh the account of the former more than that of the latter.

Again, your information is hearsay. I'm asking you if you have any words from Friedman's mouth or his typewriter. If he was the terrible person you say he was, there should be plenty in a lifetime of output from him.

Besides, do you really believe someone could talk with Pinochet for 45 minutes and thereby turn him into a monster? It's not credible. It's more likely Pinochet used Friedman for propaganda value, and stroked Friedman's ego. People who run governments tend to be users and tend to be masters at stroking ego.

I once had a conversation with a Senator whom I despised. He was incredibly charming in person. I can easily see falling under the spell of someone like that.

Frankly, you don't like libertarianism, which is your choice, but if this 45 minute conversation with Pinochet (for which no transcript exists) is all you have, it isn't much of anything.

I still think it's ironic that libertarianism's detractors claim it's both about no government at all and oppressive, authoritarian regimes. Clearly both positions can't be right, and likely neither.