In this conception, economic domination, even in extreme forms is justifiable and even argued to be perfectly libertarian, as long as all exchanges leading to that end state occurred through “voluntary” exchange. But it’s important to note that “voluntary” is doing a lot of work here, and implies that everything that’s voluntary is inherently just, because according to the negative rights conceptions the lack of coercion into something is the only concept of oppression.

That, bitcoin has achieved the dream of Rothbard’s propertarian vision, by manifesting inviolable property rights, which can be the basis for a complete reformation of culture and society around a purely market-driven system, that lessons or eliminates the need for government, taxation, the welfare state, and will finally unleash the market’s invisible hand upon the world to fix all that ails it — and all that ails it, is the malinvestment, cultural degeneracy, and lack of discernment that easy money and credit unleash upon the world, at the end of the barrel of the government’s gun. That, market failures, externalities, liquidity traps, thrift paradoxes, and all the things that literally every practicing macroeconomist thinks about — are all just propaganda for “fiat”, communism or some shadowy totalizing ideology being pursued by a bunch of unaccountable elites.

Other signs you’re dealing with the fascist impulse when you get to the extremes of these ideologies, that has emerged from the progenitor libertarian impulse is these political views are often steeped in deep cultural commentary, talking about things like cultural degeneracy, consumer decadence, talk about incentivizing value-shifts in people from a culture of quantity to one that is more preoccupied with “quality” — more artisanal goods, more “productive” investments, less “hedonistic” consumption. This is the language of virtue. Not the language of objective facts about the world. It’s even internally contradictory with an economic system that claims to be grounded in a fundamental epistemic claim about value, that it’s inherently subjective to begin with.