> I'm not arguing that the government response to the pandemic was good, though. I'm arguing that the market response to it is and was terrible. Sure, some things remained functional, but having a run on cleaning supplies, hygiene products, electronic components, and others because the markets could not cope with elastic demand isn't a great look.

I guess we just have different expectations. I expected a global pandemic and international shutdowns to affect supply chains. Even with those shut downs we still barely experienced any issues. Like why would you think there wouldn't be a run on something like cleaning supplies when out of nowhere "hey there's a scary (and it was scary) virus and it's infecting people"? The fact that markets immediately started creating new supplies of these products to meet consumer demand is nothing short of a fantastic success. Can't serve alcohol because your bar is closed? Now you're making hand sanitizer. That's the market economy working. I can't believe someone would look at the pandemic and their take away is that our companies failed us. Insanity in my view. It's not even something I can fathom so there isn't really anything to say here other than I couldn't disagree more and it's alien to me to hold that view.

> I am saying that libertarians and what even qualifies as "general libertarian philosophy" is so incredibly fractured and scattershot that even speaking of "libertarians" as some sort of group is an exercise in futility, and not only because people like yourself will leap to the defense of "libertarians" without any clarification at all.

Sure and I was responding to a now flagged OP grouping them together and leaping to the attack for no good reason.

> Because it there's ANY unifying theme between "libertarians" and "libertarians", it's "markets handle problems better than governments",

Ok so we're blaming an ineffectual group that has no relevance on the political stage because we just kind of casually disagree with them? So they're responsible for all the bad stuff?

> which they demonstrably do not.

I mean markets do have issues but as I look around I can't help but think that they are anything but a wild success.

> And who's arguing for communism here?

Nobody, just responding to immature and off the cuff "but the libertarians and markets screwed everything up" with an equally immature "ok fine then I'll just say it's the communists fault". It's like you can have a mature and interesting conversation, or you can lobby garbage posts. I just respond in-kind to what's being presented.

> Sure, great, amazing. That's a position I'm happy to live with. Quibbling about differences in communist theory isn't relevant, since it actually seems to be popular with Gen Z and Millenials, and maybe they'll get a chance to actually try it through advocacy and electing people who match their beliefs instead of living in some no-man's land of "we don't wanna be part of your system, man, but if we were we'd do it so much better".

I'm a millennial and while I'm pretty left leaning there's absolutely no chance I'd ever be advocating for a return to or to implement communist economic systems because we know pretty much for a fact that they just don't work. Not that there aren't good elements we can steal and put into our government to help make sure markets are operating not just efficiently but fairly and people are living nice, healthy lives with a clean environment and opportunities to do interesting things.

There's a reason that countries like Sweden, Singapore, Denmark, Norway, France, and Switzerland (among many others) operate in highly capitalistic and market economies and strictly not communist ones.

> That's how democracy works.

Kind of. Just living together is one option, but if you piss people off eventually they'll just leave. Democracy is about cooperation and coordination, not "now it's my turn".