Why are *so many* Libertarians so smug and annoying?

[All Along The Watchtower]

First, let's take a look at the world of academia....

I know of very few academics or economics departments in the United States (and even less in the rest of the world) who take Austrian economics seriously. Libertarian political philosophy has always seemed to me to be a fifth-rate attempt to plagiarize the work of John Locke or Thomas Jefferson, and a few other people who are selectively quoted to appear "clever."

Which leads me to my next point-I know of almost no serious student of philosophy (let alone an actual teacher of philosophy) who takes Libertarianism seriously as an intellectual tradition. Note that this is not the same as understanding something, yet disagreeing with it-plenty of intellectuals have disagreed about all kinds of political and philosophical traditions, and often passionately, at that. The Libertarian movement seems so absurd, that most people don't even bother to mount a serious argumentative challenge to it, because they know it's not worth it.

Not to mention, the overlap between Libertarianism and "F you, Dad!" atheism, cannot be ignored. So much for serious commentary or debate in the religious sphere.

So with that being said...Why are *so many* Libertarians so smug and annoying? Furthermore, where are all of these Libertarian "memes" (eg "END THE FED" or "REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY!") coming from?

Maybe we live in a Brave New World where the pseudo-trendy politics of 4chan and Reddit are the smug, self-satisfied justifications for all kinds of political malfeasance and intellectual hackery.

Feel free to comment, discuss, or denounce me now.

[bedstuy]

I think you're probably right about extreme libertarian academics.  Almost all economists believe in free trade and limited government, but are political moderate and their economics research is based on empirical research and boring math stuff.  Austrian economics is uninterested in empirical research and boring math stuff.

Robert Nozick comes to mind as the most prominent libertarian academic philosopher.  I couldn't name another modern example.  There are a few other famous libertarian academics in other areas of study. 

I agree that the internet seems chock full of annoying libertarians.  I honestly think that's almost neurological.  People who lack social insight, empathy and experience dealing with human beings tend to be overrepresented on the internet.  Instead of going to the bars with their friends, they're commenting on Youtube.  At the same time, a lack of empathy and understanding of how humans work makes libertarianism attractive. 

[DC Al Fine]

Is this coming from outside Atlas? The libertarians here don't seem any more smug than the other ideologies.

Anyways, to take a stab at your question; I suspect a lot of it has to do with age/gender. Young males tend to be smug, and libertarians are disproportionately young and male. The same goes for the communists I've encountered.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because that's what Libertarianism is about.

[ZuWo]

Is this coming from outside Atlas? The libertarians here don't seem any more smug than the other ideologies.

Definitely this. There are many left-wing posters on the Atlas who are smug and annoying, which is probably due to the fact that they are a part of the majority and rarely have to defend or question their own views, but hardly any smug or annyoing libertarians.

[Kushahontas]

Because they're largely a bunch of white college kids from middle to upper-middle class backgrounds who vociferously rail against everything that isn't market worship yet take advantage of work-study positions and financial aid

[Deus Naturae]

When calling people smug and annoying, it is generally best not to do it in a manner which possesses both of those qualities.

First, let's take a look at the world of academia....

I know of very few academics or economics departments in the United States (and even less in the rest of the world) who take Austrian economics seriously. Libertarian political philosophy has always seemed to me to be a fifth-rate attempt to plagiarize the work of John Locke or Thomas Jefferson, and a few other people who are selectively quoted to appear "clever."

If Jefferson and Locke are the only libertarian philosophers you knew of, I suggest doing some reading. Also, where have you read this philosophy that you consider to be plagiarism? I'd be interested to know if your view if based on actually reading literature about libertarian political philosophy, or simply anecdotal evidence based on observations of random posts on the internet.

As for Austrian economics, I would think that that is generally the case with most unorthodox economic views. In addition, I think it would be hard to find many economists, here in the states at least, who support protectionism or rent control. Yet these policies still enjoy considerable political followings. Of course, if you're really interested in finding Austrian academics, this would probably be a good place to look.

It's also worth noting that Austrian economics isn't the only "libertarian" economic school.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How many philosophers do you know? On what basis do you assert that libertarianism is passively dismissed, more so than other philosophies?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. Other than a few Objectivists, I've encountered few libertarians who were strongly hostile towards religion. At this point, I would think libertarians, even atheist ones, would be considered more favorable to religion, then, say, progressives, due to growing controversy about the government's authority to coerce religious groups (the Obamacare contraceptive mandate, for example).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The latter meme is not exclusive to libertarians, in my experience. The former is clearly a result of Ron Paul's use of the phrase.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If the OP wants to look at a smug person, he needs only a mirror.

[ilikeverin]

Because libertarians are, by and large, privileged upper-middle-class young white men, and privileged upper-middle-class young white men tend to be smug and annoying in general?

[IceSpear]

People of all political persuasions tend to be smug and annoying, especially to those who do not share their ideology.

[tik 🪀✨]

People of all political persuasions tend to be smug and annoying, especially to those who do not share their ideology.

Yeah, this. Smugness and irritating self-righteous condescending asshattery is a natural byproduct of an ideology. It means you've got It All Figured Out and don't have to think much more. Everyone's guilty of that and I know it's very sagey to say. Casual libertarians have an answer, an absolute that is unachievable but sounds easy.  Therefore they can sit high above us all and spout unverifiable ideas without fear of being definitively shown to be wrong. It's very safe, and its emphasis on individuality makes proponents feel strong and secure. There's also an ironic tribal mentality about being part of a kind of movement.

But yeah, those qualities are present to varying degrees in most ideological proponents. Libertarians are just more.. outspoken.

[TJ in Oregon]

First, let's take a look at the world of academia....

I know of very few academics or economics departments in the United States (and even less in the rest of the world) who take Austrian economics seriously. Libertarian political philosophy has always seemed to me to be a fifth-rate attempt to plagiarize the work of John Locke or Thomas Jefferson, and a few other people who are selectively quoted to appear "clever."

Which leads me to my next point-I know of almost no serious student of philosophy (let alone an actual teacher of philosophy) who takes Libertarianism seriously as an intellectual tradition. Note that this is not the same as understanding something, yet disagreeing with it-plenty of intellectuals have disagreed about all kinds of political and philosophical traditions, and often passionately, at that. The Libertarian movement seems so absurd, that most people don't even bother to mount a serious argumentative challenge to it, because they know it's not worth it.

I suspect the main reason you aren't encountering many libertarians in academia is twofold:
1) You're leaving out a huge gaping whole of subject areas where you will find plenty of libertarians in academia and that's hard science. Areas like philosophy and to a lesser extent economics are social sciences that include significant value placed on ideals like empathy and expression, which aren't generally ideals libertarians are predisposed to.
2) Most of academia is funded by the government. People who believe the government shouldn't fund social institutions are distinctly unlikely to sign themselves up.

On this vein, I need to add one more thought, that your immediate deferment to representation in academia as the intellectual depth of an ideology might be an example of smugness on your part.

Not to mention, the overlap between Libertarianism and "F you, Dad!" atheism, cannot be ignored. So much for serious commentary or debate in the religious sphere.

Here I'll have to agree with Deus Naturae,  while there certainly are obnoxiously rebellious atheist angsty libertarians, the progressive movement poses a far more dangerous threat to the future of religion than libertarianism does since while libertarians typically want the government out of moral issues, the progressive side doesn't want the government out, they've made up their own brand of morality that they want the government to impose instead of Christianity, which they expect universal support of and if you disagree they'll raise all hell in faux moral outrage about how you must be some sort of troglodyte who dares to question the completely unproven claim that there is a arc of social progress toward "morality", which is more or less defined as the freedom to immediately toss whatever last undying sliver of virtue might possibly hurt anyone's feelings (unless you disagree with them, in which case they cannot tolerate intolerance). They also act as though whatever happened more than like 5 years ago was some distant era where even though by there standard almost everyone living would be bigoted moron who needs to go crawl back under whatever rock they slithered out from under, except that since it was before we reached out modern enlightenment of the last ten minutes' attention span, we can't consider the thoughts and actions of the people living then by today's standards because it's just beyond them. The latter is far more narcissistic, self-righteous, and smug than libertarians could ever dream of being.

[Vosem]

Because the movement is extremely rapidly gaining support and influence, especially among the general public but also to some extent among politicians? [/smug]

On a more serious note, probably because the most fervent libertarians are comparatively wealthy young males -- all demographics that are probably associated with 'smugness'. I'd have to second TJ's point that there exist a lot of libertarians studying engineering and other STEM fields.

[Lurker]

The smaller and less influential a political group is, the more smug and annoying it will be.

Case in point: Trotskyists, who remain far more smug than "libertarians" could ever hope to be. Not to mention annoying as hell.

[Indy Texas]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here since I once was a hopefully far less smug or annoying version of what you describe and moved extensively in those circles in my young and reckless days.

Regarding Jefferson and Locke, I think there is a tendency among what I might call the "wrong kind of libertarians" to basically just take a bunch of paragraphs from the Federalist Papers or any other colonial era writing out of context and try to shoehorn it into their very 'Murica view that this country was founded to be all about stockpiling deadly weapons and rebelling against governments and defending our "God-given Constitutional freedoms" (because God totally wrote the Constitution and the world of the Biblical Middle East was such a liberty-lovin' place with its slavery and theocracy and absolute monarchy and high taxes imposed by Caesar). This sort of mentality seems disturbingly common among a lot of ex-military guys, particularly the kind who support people like Ron Paul and Adam Kokesh. Kind of ironic considering they are also the very people who literally personify the notion of the State as the sole holder of the "legitimate" use of force and violence.

What those people adhere to is a bizarre form of what you might call "anti-state authoritarianism."

But if you're interested in what might be called "classical liberal" writing, I would recommend Frederic Bastiat or Lord Acton. There's also that Scotsman by the name of Adam Smith. And, if you're looking for something witty, H. L. Mencken. I also still have a copy of David Boaz's The Libertarian Reader from ages ago, which is an anthology of writings that I think sum up what "real" libertarians actually base their philosophy on.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The smaller and less influential a political group is, the more smug and annoying it will be.

Case in point: Trotskyists, who remain far more smug than "libertarians" could ever hope to be. Not to mention annoying as hell.

As someone with a Trotskyist uncle, this is true.

[freefair]

A lot of Libertarians avatars here are either 'Economist' style pragmatic "Neoclassical liberal"/culturally liberal fiscal conservatives who'd vote VVD in the Netherlands or FDP in Germany. Maybe that's why were less smug

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

This is the future. Smug Libertarian atheists ruling the world

[dead0man]

The ironing in this thread is delicious.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Case in point: Trotskyists, who remain far more smug than "libertarians" could ever hope to be. Not to mention annoying as hell.

There's only one language those people understand.

[ingemann]

They only seem so incredible smug and annoying, because they ride on a wave right now. While at this point in history, it's social unacceptable for the extreme left to talk about, who will be against the wall after the revolution, it seem it's mostly acceptable among the Libertarians and their ilk to talk about letting the poor starve to death and violent uprising against the government. Of course at some point that too will be completely unacceptable (of course at that point, it will on the extreme left likely be acceptable about what happens after the revolution again).

[Lurker]

Case in point: Trotskyists, who remain far more smug than "libertarians" could ever hope to be. Not to mention annoying as hell.

There's only one language those people understand.

Reading the WSWS (not to be recommended) is the one thing that can make you feel kinda nostalgic about some of the Stalinist purges.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Well, some L avatars on Atlasia are more like the "low tax-liberalism" of Ed Clark.

[⛄]

A lot of Libertarians avatars here are either 'Economist' style pragmatic "Neoclassical liberal"/culturally liberal fiscal conservatives who'd vote VVD in the Netherlands or FDP in Germany. Maybe that's why were less smug

Since when are FDP voters not smug and conceited?
And since when is the FDP culturally liberal?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Thanks for the responses....self-bump here.

I have realized that the Libertarian/Randian understanding of rights is quite asymmetric. Selfishness is a virtue-provided that you are the one acting in a selfish manner. Others cannot act in a purely selfish, egoistic manner; for by doing so, they would necessarily be screwing everyone else over.

If everyone acted purely out of selfish, self-interested calculation, then what's to stop any individual from stealing or destroying another's property? Nothing. So much for "absolute" property rights.

This is why the Libertarian doctrines of Ayn Rand, Hayek, etc. are self-refuting and self-contradictory. The standard of egoism must ONLY apply to you, and not anybody else in society.
Otherwise, you have purely anti-social behavior among individuals in society. Therefore, this is not a viable ideology.