(Disclaimer: I am not a libertarian, though I was once.)
These arguments have a fundamental flaw, arguing that a libertarian enjoying some government benefit is "hypocrisy." This is nonsense.
Libertarian tech bros pay into our system just like everyone else. Given the progressive income tax, those who are billionaires likely pay more in years where they make money than just about anyone else. So if the government is in the position to offer money, what good does it do for them to refuse? If they refuse, will the government be embarrassed and adopt libertarians' preferred policies? It's no more hypocritical than a socialist defending her private property.
Personally, I think if libertarians are serious, they should seek out every government benefit they're qualified for, and encourage everyone else to do the same. If libertarians are right, then the shaky foundations of the Progressive system can be toppled over by overuse.
I think the real thing being unmasked is that libertarianism is often ideology without grounding in reality. They can't account for the world of second bests, and the Progressive system has twisted and destroyed so much of what was once free that getting to a libertarian world would be like a society-wide kernel panic.
Thiel deserves credit for being one of the (quasi-)libertarians who seems to recognize this and has attempted alternatives like that seasteading thing, though they typically haven't gotten off the ground.
I think your broader point is generally true and often missed so have an upvote, but in this case the FDIC is going beyond it's stated policy. Demanding that the floor of the FDIC's guarantee be lifted/ignored seems distinctly anti-libertarian regardless of whether it was the right thing to do practically. Draining a substantial portion of the FDIC's insurance program's funds seems anti-libertarian. Refilling that portion through (likely) additional requirements on banks that didn't have these issues seems anti-libertarian.
I guess you could make the broader point that people comfortable with government intervention would have argued for full depositor guarantees, so in some since libertarians are playing the same game but that seems much more tenuous to me.
Per your general point, it was very well written! I like to say that you aren't a hypocrite for playing by the rules of checkers even if you wanted to be playing chess but were overruled.
I think these are all fair points, and if the author of that article were capable of making them, I'd be sympathetic. Instead we got a litany of non-libertarians (including Larry Page! lol) plus David Sacks. Peter Thiel is also guilty, you see, because he's buddies with Sacks and once upon a time worked with Elon.
The underlying problem here is the naturalistic fallacy. Libertarianism is a set of statements about how the world should be, not about how it is. I think this is a flaw with the ideology, because I don't see a path from the "is" world to the "ought" world, but that's beside the point. Your chess vs checkers analogy is right on.
David Sacks had a concise statement about what he thought the world should be based on what it is.[0] I'm not sure how it works in practice, but it is a coherent worldview. Given that we don't live in a world corresponding to his proposal, but in one where certain people making loud noises can get their way, I don't see any hypocrisy, even though it may be embarrassing.
These arguments have a fundamental flaw, arguing that a libertarian enjoying some government benefit is "hypocrisy." This is nonsense.
Libertarian tech bros pay into our system just like everyone else. Given the progressive income tax, those who are billionaires likely pay more in years where they make money than just about anyone else. So if the government is in the position to offer money, what good does it do for them to refuse? If they refuse, will the government be embarrassed and adopt libertarians' preferred policies? It's no more hypocritical than a socialist defending her private property.
Personally, I think if libertarians are serious, they should seek out every government benefit they're qualified for, and encourage everyone else to do the same. If libertarians are right, then the shaky foundations of the Progressive system can be toppled over by overuse.
I think the real thing being unmasked is that libertarianism is often ideology without grounding in reality. They can't account for the world of second bests, and the Progressive system has twisted and destroyed so much of what was once free that getting to a libertarian world would be like a society-wide kernel panic.
Thiel deserves credit for being one of the (quasi-)libertarians who seems to recognize this and has attempted alternatives like that seasteading thing, though they typically haven't gotten off the ground.