Defense/military is one of the few government functions that libertarians endorse as totally necessary. To many, it's the only legitimate government function.

I don't think you've thought about this very hard.

Ah then - so in your mind it's only Elon who's the hypocrite?

What specifically do you think Elon has said which is hypocritical?

Are you not following our conversation?

Libertarians aren't anarchists. They don't generally believe that there should be no government (although you can find people who believe just about anything). I don't think there's anything hypocritical about libertarians taking government contracts for defense. If they were taking government contracts or jobs around regulating markets or building public housing, then that would be closer to hypocritical, but I'm not sure that even qualifies. Hypocrisy isn't benefiting from something you disapprove of, it's engaging in it, so arguably, they'd have to be the ones issuing the laws they disapprove of for it to be hypocrisy.

Maybe.

But they almost certainly don't just take this work. They advocate for more work. They lobby for more funds.

I'm not a libertarian, so I don't know the details, but I believe advocated for larger government must be contrary to their beliefs, no?

Maybe, but not necessarily. It really depends on what they actually believe (or say they believe) specifically. If their belief is "societies work better when governments don't interfere with markets", then their beliefs say nothing about what individual people should do in situations where a government does interfere with markets. They may also believe that if you can't fix something, taking advantage of it is justified, in which case they are not being hypocritical. That's not to say you can't regard such a position as unethical. However, I think many if not most people use systems they are in favor of dismantling. For example, people who believe housing is a human right don't typically donate their houses when they move, they sell them on the open market.

> They may also believe that if you can't fix something, taking advantage of it is justified

Yes, but you're ignoring my central point. They aren't merely taking advantage of something, they are pushing to expand and enlarge it.

You can argue for changes while still recognizing that the current rules make it more optimal to do the things you argue against. There is no contradiction.

But you cannot advocate to extend the current rules for the profit of your company.