Libertarianism sounded great. Its all about freedom, and the right to do with yourself what you want. And who doesnt want that?

But they also wanted that freedom for their property and money.

And if youre willing to skirt or plainly violate the laws, you can make bank. And then as a company, you can basically bribe politicians and do all these horrible things.

The end result of libertarianism is simple: He who has the gold makes the rule.

Dont like your pay? Fuck you. Quit.

Dont like the conditions? Fuck you. Die.

Dont like political manipulation? Too fucking bad. You have no choice.

Dont like policies at mega-internet corp (meta, alphabet, microsoft)? Too bad, we'll erase you.

Libertarianism creates semi-autonomous enclaves of technofeudalism. And their power is enforced by non-internet mundane government laws, like the DMCA.

You violate a company, and they delete you. You violate government law, and they arrest or kill you. Of course its in line of duty, or defense of officer - all the eupamisms.

But long story short, I do not trust libertarians in any way. They do indeed want freedom to control everyone else.

Is technofeudalism even a thing? Yanis Varoufakis goes on about it (despite being a keen WEF collaborator)... But it seems to me that in mediaeval feudalism that the lords needed the peasants downstream to produce food and military units. In the technocratic system we are heading towards, the lower classes (us) will be needed for labour and military purposes even less, thanks to automation etc. They will have less and less need for our income since they will have automated investments too. The one similarity to feudalism will be an information caste to make sure we tow the line but even that can be automated.

Not an attractive situation but not a very feudal one.