Real neoliberalism (with land value tax and pigouvian tax) has never been tried.

Then you misunderstand, the markets and economies of the past 5 decades have been two children playing Candyland. Saying it's not is a No True Scotsman fallacy, because clearly since I labeled it as Candyland economy it must be so.

Sure, and you could argue that we haven’t actually tried communism, or that US democracy is so gerrymandered and neutered (eg Citizens United), etc about any political system. I don’t think we’d be where we are in the US if we had a “pure” democracy, I don’t think Russia would be where it is if they had actually gotten to communism. South America might be a much different place if the US hadn’t looked at the budding socialist movements and said “no way, buddy”.

because a high percentage people on HN fall into the group that benefits more from neoliberal economics than the larger group of people within those economies who don't benefit.

I used to think like you, until I saw what the lack of neoliberalism does to countries. And before I witnessed the magic of market economy that adapts to changes far, far, far better than anything else.

If you want a static economy that supports gradual decline (preferably with a mineral-based income stream), then a lot of state spending is fine.

Being opposed to neoliberalism does not mean being opposed to free markets in general.

The brand of neoliberalism where the fox sets up shop in the henhouse does not work.

State spending is not a panacea.

Same as the communists, in that it hasn't been truly implemented anywhere?

I don't have the brain-rot of calling all of mainstream economics 'neoliberalism' so I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here.