This is a solid distinction. Advocating for the reduction of state power doesn’t necessarily mean endorsing private control as a replacement, it can mean advocating for open, decentralized alternatives instead.

The Starlink example is apt: the issue isn’t just that it’s privately owned, but that it operates as a closed system, reinforcing centralized control rather than enabling broader access. In contrast, something like TCP/IP embodies the kind of open protocol ethos that libertarians (or anyone skeptical of concentrated power) should favor.

Privatization in itself isn’t inherently good or bad. It depends on whether it results in more openness and choice or just shifts control from one centralized entity to another. Cheering for open protocols rather than just privatization gets at the heart of that distinction.