Um, yeah, but I was thinking primarily of the second kind of rumor - that in the political sphere. No one clicks or spends money because Ted Cruz is spotted buying new tires for the SUV or Elizabeth Warren’s shoes show off her new pedicure.
Not just. Not necessarily.
Care to elaborate? You may disagree with Libertarian thought on the matter, but what specific “hypocrisy” are you talking about?
Good alliteration isn’t necessary a good argument. 
Liberty is liberty, doesn’t matter how you got it. Bigger, richer, more powerful, have at it.
Speaking for myself, not for septimus; hypocrisy is observable when self-styled libertarians inevitably begin witnessing…preaching their fundamentalist claptrap to the rest of us with the implication that it’s for our own good. That their libertarian utopia is the best of all possible worlds for everyone…when in fact the libertarian’s agenda is driven entirely by self-interest. Postings by some of this board’s more outspoken libetarians in a recent Pit thread exemplify the sort of hypocrisy and general misanthropy that I’m thinking of.
Start a new thread if you need to debate the precise definition of “hypocrisy.” I’ll give two examples of how I use the term.
Libertarians claim to espouse personal responsibility and eschew government efforts to manage behavior, yet Paul Ryan wants to “help” the unemployed by reducing their income. (I doubt he’d approve of plans to reduce incentives for bankers and CEO’s to reduce their frauds by government-forced reductions to their bonuses. 
)
Know that the point is NOT whether reducing unemployment benefits is good for the economy NOR is it whether making the unemployed even poorer than they already are is “good” for those unemployed. The point is that for someone who pretends to emphasize personal responsibility to advocate policies to “help” by controlling behavior is hypocrisy.
BTW, you, John Mace defended Ryan’s view in another thread and did not respond when I asked for clarification. Consider this post a final attempt to help you, until you help yourself by answering the questions directed at you.
Example 2: I see the debate over free speech as part of a struggle between ordinary people and vested interests. Vested interests are winning the struggle in U.S.A. in part due to unfortunate recent court rulings and law repeals. Libertarianism pretends to have humanitarian or utilitarian values, yet in practice many self-described “libertarians” come down firmly on the side of vested interests and against humanity. A trite “Repeal the 1st amendment or shut down the internet” certainly reflects ignorance of the fact that much of the trend toward U.S. disinformation have been led by right-wing legislation and court rulings and that these can and should be reversed. Liars like Beck and Limbaugh get huge air time, while common demonstrators are arrested or shuttled into isolated “free speech zones.”
Nor is trite and irrelevant snark.
Alliteration: alternatively, an altogether allowable (albeit alarming) allusion. Also, alas, allegation.
First of all, I think it was Rand Paul who said that. Secondly, neither Paul nor Ryan are Libertarians-- they are Republicans. Third, it’s not hypocritical to favor a reduction in government benefits, but not favor the government forcing cuts in the salaries private corporations give to their officers or employees. Fourth, you specifically said “It’s instructive to read what “Libertarians” write on this topic”, and that example isn’t even about “this topic”.
Nope, and again this illustrates your lack of understanding of what Libertarian thought is. But you’re not alone-- this is a very common error. Libertarians place freedom above all. They do not espouse altruism or utilitarianism-- they espouse freedom. Now, many think that, as a by-product, people are “helped” and that the best use of resources are made, but those are not essential to Libertarian thought. Freedom is all. It’s real easy to remember, too. The name is Libertarianism, not Utilitarianism or Humanitarianism.
You may want to take ten minutes and read a little about what Libertarianism is before opining on it so passionately.
But I commend you, comrade, on fighting the good fight and equating government assistance with income.
You managed to make four responses while totally ignoring the point. Try again:
You agreed that cutting unemployment benefits was good because it “helped” the unemployed. Have you changed your mind on this? Even if it’s true, does this alleged “helping” not contradict the very emphasis on self-reliance libertarians hold so dear?
“many think” ? I don’t want to teach you what your own philosophy is, but if human utility or betterment is not the goal of any political philosophy, then that philosophy is ipso facto defective.
Dude, you need to let it go*. And that wasn’t “the point”. The point was hypocrisy, which you failed to show.
It’s not my philosophy. Just because I understand it doesn’t mean I adhere to it. However, I do agree with you that Libertarianism is defective. I said so at least a dozen times on this MB.
*And I thought you said it was your “final post”.
elucidator:
What percent did Godzilla save you on your car insurance, and how many minutes did his call take?
Ask people for links to the data. Always ask for the data.
People might get the idea, and start looking for data. Eventually, they might start to notice that certain organizations are not reliable. I picked out two sites in the list you posted immediately that would lead me to discount the reports; I’m going to go check out the others now to see if they should be put on auto-filter.
The truth is out there.
Not to mention that Godzilla isn’t a lizard. Reptile, more of the dinosaur persuasion, but not a lizard.