solidhybrid845

The obvious difference between a libertarian government and divine monarchy is in the level of authority given to the government. In a monarchy, the monarch's will is law. Under libertarian government, the government is extremely limited to only protecting a very small set of rights. You could in theory have a libertarian monarchy where a king was only given a limited authority to enforce laws related to natural rights violations, but the two concepts are very different.

A libertarian democracy of course is more desirable. Which means the people's votes, or the authority given to their representatives, would be limited to only those issues related to natural rights violations. Under a libertarian government, the people are still quite free to exercise their will, only they could not use the government to impose their will on other individuals. Social problems can still be solved through community organizations outside of the government.

I think the biggest weakness of the pure libertarian philosophy is the uncompromising defense of property rights. If a small group manages to acquire all of the property, they can use their monopoly to exploit everyone else while the government protects their "rights".

I got the same sense from this article. He values "cyberlibertarians" based on what they contribute to the right vs left and concludes that their contributions favor the right more. Although the distributed vs centralized argument is nothing new (see federalists vs anti-federalists in the late 18th century) it seems to have been largely absent from political discussions for a long time.

The author seems to be struggling to fit these new ideals into his liberal vs conservative world view and rather than being able to see this "free and open" movement as something different, concludes that it's a political ploy to weaken big government regulatory powers for the profit of wealthy capitalists.

It does seem that younger generations are more open to a wider variety of political ideology, but I don't think familiarity with technology has much to do with it other than the incidental fact that the internet allows people to be exposed to ideas they would probably never hear from the mass media or mainstream political debates.