Their worship of free markets are so cultlike.
Why are libertarians so retarded?
Other urls found in this thread:
It's not that right-libertarians are retarded, it's that retards are the only people who can be right-libertarians.
mistaking the fact that since most of them were born into owning class that capitalism allows the cream to the rise to the top. its worship of the self. and of course
There's also the obsession with rationality.
Apparently RIGHT libertarians are autistc
Lolberts ad Ayncaps are the result of taking economics 101 an considering oneself an expert because the introductory course. This is evident by their worship of the market as infallible and supply and demand, which are the concepts drilled in during Econ101. What they fail to do is take Econ102 where things like sticky prices that prevent the supply and demand curves from working like it should are explored, thus resulting in idealism with no root in reality. Not that the liberals that result from 102 and above are much better, but at least they don't reject the scientific method in favor of praxology.
They're walking contradictions because you can't be a capitalist and a libertarian/anarchist. They just want to be able to sell ibuprofen for 300 dollars a bottle and do heroin
for the majority of them they've been lied to about what capitalism and socialism are
libertarians both left and right are fucking retarded because they either want socialism (left) or capitalism (right) without calling the resulting state a state
to add on they are children who believe the world beyond the blanket over their eyes doesn't exist
They willfully decieve themselves
Reclaiming that word ain't happening, bucko.
Its just sad cause they seem aware in terms of foreign policy and the fact that some force is screwing them over but completely in denial that it is the corporatists and elite, instead its "the government". Worse yet, their solution to solve the problems in our system would be to LESSEN the burdens on the elite. Its such a waste.
They view the market as God, and the capitalists as His messengers. They think we've angered the market by punishing his messengers and we need to atone.
Anarchist is a more subversive term anyway. I think there is value in using terms like communist and anarchist that clearly entail a rejection of the current order over weaker terms like socialist or left libertarian.
The other guy didn't express the problem properly. It's not rationality per se, but rationality in a context where they fail to question their assumptions, taking them as axioms for their rational framework.
Their reasoning is not sound because while often valid, many of its premises are not true. They get their premises from capitalism's superstructure.
Just remind yourself this, OP:
"At least they're not fucking tankies or trots."
Forced me to contemplate the ideological superstructure.
About as cultlike as your worship of technocratic planning.
One thing I always thought was silly was how they are totally concerned with whether or not one principle logically follows from another instead of what the effects of that principle in practice would be. Like they reason that the individual owns themselves and that they therefore own their labour, making property acquired through labour an extension of oneself. As a result any appropriation of that property is oppressive and constitutes enslavement. They stand by the principle even when it clearly shows that it crushes people's agency and freedom instead of enhancing it. Politics isn't about what logically follows from what, it's about a set of moral values and how to put them into practice.