This is some very weak libertarianism. First, he should not be recognizing that any country at all should have sovereignty over anything. Second, he should not accept that anything is 'non-negotiable'. And third, this conflict of interest is more than 40 years old at this point, and showing any kind of enthusiastic interest in something that old goes against the very founding idea of libertarianism.
A true libertarian would argue that the Falklands should be the sovereign territory of the highest bidding private investor and that everything is negotiable. And they would reserve their passionate interest for Snapchat, which turns 12 this year.
“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...”
tl;dr: The right wing co-opted libertarianism for its own ends...
The US would find a way to pick the duelling method and would continue being an imperialist power just by Biden's ability to devour more glitzies than any other head of state.
Nope! That's an historical claim from Argentina, every president says the same. Turns out that Milei is much more favorable to the UK, he said that Margaret Thatcher was a great leader.
The current claim is that the people there pretty much unanimously voted that they want to remain British. Britain is in decline, but Argentina in terms of actual conditions and stability for those that live there is worse.
It's a settler state fighting a coloniser state on the basis that the settler state is the one who really deserves to own a rock far out in the ocean on the basis of a dubious historical claim against the wishes of the people who live there.