I found his politics around libertarianism to be a little ideologically incoherent, since he (correctly in my view) rejects the idea of labor/capital negotiatio

I found his politics around libertarianism to be a little ideologically incoherent, since he (correctly in my view) rejects the idea of labor/capital negotiations without unions to be fair and other things espoused in that essay. But then the archipelago and atomic communitarism (https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-communitarianism/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic...) piece was accidentally an argument that stumbled in some of the same ways libertarianism does. In the end, I don't think it's damning to have an incoherent ideology (almost everyone, myself included, seems to) and on the whole I think that his blog is interesting and has high upside. (There is a lot of other stuff that I find kinda repulsive tbh.) But it seems worth examining that ideology when it seems to have a lot of billionaires in its orbit, and especially when those people are going to end up shaping the future of life in the US in a big way. (Especially given that the world that they have such a large hand in creating doesn't seem to be working super well for a lot of people.)