You had me fooled. I genuinely thought Strawperson was a different writer. The style and tone are opposite to what I have come to associate with your usual diatribes.
On reflection, the similarities creep in. I once accused you (irrelevantly) of not being very libertarian, just neo-liberal (or something). The article, while acknowledging the historical realities that make libertarianism a bad idea at the moment, looks favourably on privatisation of public services and resources. QED.
Still, the conclusion you make as Strawperson goes completely against the grain of everything you have said as Strawman, and I find it difficult to understand your true position.
"When the majority of people believe that they will get greater benefit from being able divest parts of the collective ownership, it will be done."
Have you looked at your own link to 'democracy' lately? It gives a definition of "subjugation of a minority by the majority". It specifically disparages the belief in the statement I quote above re divesting parts of the collective ownership.
"If you don't like [something]....convince the [government] to change it"
This is what I've been saying for ages. I just get told about the uselessness of voting and how all politicians are the same and that government increases in size forever regardless of what constitutional mechanisms or legislative checks and balances are put in place.
"Don't blame the government" Did you really type that, and agree with it?
So in the end, I don't know whether you were being sarcastic as Strawperson, or letting your true colours shine through the talkback-radio host hyperbole normally posted.
Or perhaps you just remembered to take your medication. :-)