u/CorDra2011

This is based on somewhat anecdotal experience but something I noticed seemingly out of the blue is right-libertarians, such as classical liberals or even ancaps, support internet privacy laws that restrict what platforms and businesses are able to do with an individual’s data. This is rather bafflingly inconsistent to me and fundamentally undermines a lot of their thinking on the role of government and law in the economy. Maybe I'm missing something or some of you could better explain why these laws are so popular beyond what I suspect to be the case?

One of my strongest personal beliefs is that D.C., and many other territories who suffer unjustly, deserves equal stature among the Union. However much to be continued surprise, perhaps foolishly, I continue to run into many arguments and disagreement over it. The most compelling is that it would at least in part require a change to the 23rd Amendment. Often times the arguments however amount to a partisan one that I find deeply disagreeable.

​

I urge detractors of statehood to explain their opposition in detail below, perhaps we can come to some productive conclusions.

I've often heard criticism of democracy, especially the more populist forms, that relies upon the existence or possibility of a "tyranny of the majority" being a critical flaw therein. Often used to justify devolution of a government or abolishment of a state entirely.

​

However what nobody on the right side of the libertarian spectrum ever seems to contend with is the reality that capitalism is incentivized and built to appeal to the "tyranny of the majority". This has especially become apparent this June, and last June, as virtually every major corporation that used to proudly fly the flag of inclusion has either opted to quietly lessen their involvement or revoke their support entirely. While I never supported 'rainbow capitalism' as it were I, like many other anti-capitalist leftists, note that its absence is a canary in the coal mine for social issues.

​

While yes "competition" exists the physical reality of the world means competition cannot and will not exist everywhere is has to. Not only that but competition, in a truly free market, is not guaranteed even where it is feasible. As Hoppe points out and encourages entire societies of prejudicial people could arise forming expressly exclusionary communities that would forbid competition. What happens when the overwhelming majority of your neighbors hate you or are unconcerned that you are hated?

​

So how does a capitalist free market guarantee access to resources when it is in itself beholden to the whims of the majority at best and expressly exclusionary at worst?