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

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

You have a very distorted and unfair interpretation of libertarianism, but did I ever expect anything less from you?

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.

What exactly is your definition of selfishness? Here is a hypothetical: Am I “screwing over” the neighborhood drunk by not giving him beer money every time he asks for it?

Keeping what is rightfully yours is reasonable. It is not right or moral to seek self gain by willingly and intentionally taking something from someone else; Libertarianism rejects all forms of theft and places a high value on individual property.

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.

Again, rational selfishness (IE: hoarding saved money in a jar under your bed) is not the same as stabbing my grandma and stealing her purse. Libertarians believe in a state and law enforcement. Quit intentionally confusing Libertarianism with anarchism.

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.

Nice “expo” on Libertarianism. Besides the fact that your arguments are against a totally separate ideology that has various factions ranging from anarcho-capitalism to anarcho-primitivism and everything in between. Therefore, your arguments are invalid and your points are not viable in any serious argument on the subject.

[Deus Naturae]

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.

First of all, where do you get the idea that Hayek was a Randian anti-altruism type? Libertarianism isn't centered upon self-interest above all else, and I'm not really sure where you got the idea that it is.

I can't really speak about Rand, though I imagine you could find some sort of response to your argument if you did some research. Regardless, Objectivism isn't the same thing as libertarianism. 

[RosettaStoned]

 Liberals are far more annoying and smug.

[Person Man]

And "Libertarianism" is really nebulous concept. How do you fit people like Mike Gravel, every nerd with two million dollars and a CS degree with Rand Paul and David Sedaris's brother? 

That's what I learned between the time I had all the answers and had none of them and what many people warned me about- just because you start talking politics with someone and really hit it off well doesn't even mean you two will ever vote for the same person beyond a local race.

It was pretty funny too... "But...but enough Republican senators said they wouldn't vote for a justice that would be the one who would overturn Roe v. Wade" "I don't care what these people say to their families at dinner."

[dead0man]

My favorite part was the OP totally ignoring every critic and just goes off on a rant again in his only reply to his thread.  But it's the libertarians that are smug and annoying.  Boggles the mind.

[Mechaman]

In this day and age it's probably not a good idea for anybody to talk about other ideologies being smug and annoying.  I mean, that's what intellectuals are there for, right?

[Mechaman]

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.

Damn it!  Am I really going to agree with a post made by TJ?

I agree with the bolded part especially when talking about American history.  This shouldn't be surprising when one actually considers the root of American "Progressivism", which was pretty much a self-righteous crusade by upper crust WASP types in both parties to contain the influence of the dirty radical socialist immigrant tides that presented a clear danger to American Capital.  If you can't beat them by brutal police force or government agents, throw them a metaphorical bone every once in a while to prevent them from getting "restless".  By the same mark, today's "progressives" seem to read a version of history where they and their liberal protestant Yankee Republican ancestors were responsible for the salvation of all mankind from the forces of white southern and Catholic reactionary racist capitalistic bigotry.  Since then, naturally, the parties have flipped whereby the enlightened educated non-bigoted liberal elites are now Democrats and their dumbass racist theocratic conservative prole opponents are now Republicans.

A lot of conservatives don't do themselves much justice either, who don't seem to be able to consider that times have changed either.  You can see such a problem inherent in people like Oldiesfreak, who can't seem to process the differences between political parties from the 19th century with those that existed in the mid-late 20th century.  It's almost like an inverse of the above.  There might be a few who think the Civil War was justified and it was not about slavery, but those are a minority compared to those who believe (and you'll see this regurgitated by talking heads all the freaking time) that Republicanism has been consistently for the rights of minorities against the evil always racist segregationist Democrats who should not be trusted because they supported slavery 150 years ago.  On this website, as much sh*t as I will get for this, I must admit that our more conservative posters seem to be more enlightened about taking context into the times with how our political ideologies have developed over time and the whole "judging people by their times".

Consequently, as a result of these inherent reader's point of view bias (my side must always be the ones who were the anti-racists, basically), neither atypical "progressive" or "conservative" seem to take the time to consider why people in the past felt differently from themselves.  Fundamentally, this is more of a refusal than just ignorance to consider points of views from a time that people needn't consider and a misguided belief that all things can be broken down into a few simple categories that remain undisputed throughout history.  There are good guys and bad guys.  It is black and white, there is no room for grey.  Rather ironically, in the end both sides agree on one thing: that the enlightened elites whose revision they support are in the moral right and that the opposition was universally bad.  It's a narrative that by nature is pro-hierarchy and designed to justify all negative acts against people who didn't feel the same way about their side on the grounds that "they deserved it".
[/avoid Class War rant]

Basically, the reason why smugness exists in such a large scale among the politically devout, whether it be libertarian (I could go all day long about the flaws with libertarian bias, if need be), progressive, conservative, etc. etc. etc. etc. is because people see things through rose tinted eyeglasses that depicts the world universally in alignment with their own thoughts and actions and that any deviance from it is an abnormality worthy of damnation.  Holy hell Batman, I could barely read the preview of this post through the crimson red coloration of my eyes.

EDIT: For the record, I've talked to PR lots of times over issues like this.  He's actually one of the more intelligent posters on the board who does take sh*t in context.  I'm sure he just wants to know why some Libertarians are so absolutist and rigid in their thinking.  He'd probably be one of the first, in private, to admit there are a lot of pretentious "progressives" out there.  Hell, he brought up the progressive fear of immigrant Socialists to me about two years ago in an IRC chat.

[Person Man]

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.

Damn it!  Am I really going to agree with a post made by TJ?

I agree with the bolded part especially when talking about American history.  This shouldn't be surprising when one actually considers the root of American "Progressivism", which was pretty much a self-righteous crusade by upper crust WASP types in both parties to contain the influence of the dirty radical socialist immigrant tides that presented a clear danger to American Capital.  If you can't beat them by brutal police force or government agents, throw them a metaphorical bone every once in a while to prevent them from getting "restless".  By the same mark, today's "progressives" seem to read a version of history where they and their liberal protestant Yankee Republican ancestors were responsible for the salvation of all mankind from the forces of white southern and Catholic reactionary racist capitalistic bigotry.  Since then, naturally, the parties have flipped whereby the enlightened educated non-bigoted liberal elites are now Democrats and their dumbass racist theocratic conservative prole opponents are now Republicans.

A lot of conservatives don't do themselves much justice either, who don't seem to be able to consider that times have changed either.  You can see such a problem inherent in people like Oldiesfreak, who can't seem to process the differences between political parties from the 19th century with those that existed in the mid-late 20th century.  It's almost like an inverse of the above.  There might be a few who think the Civil War was justified and it was not about slavery, but those are a minority compared to those who believe (and you'll see this regurgitated by talking heads all the freaking time) that Republicanism has been consistently for the rights of minorities against the evil always racist segregationist Democrats who should not be trusted because they supported slavery 150 years ago.  On this website, as much sh*t as I will get for this, I must admit that our more conservative posters seem to be more enlightened about taking context into the times with how our political ideologies have developed over time and the whole "judging people by their times".

Consequently, as a result of these inherent reader's point of view bias (my side must always be the ones who were the anti-racists, basically), neither atypical "progressive" or "conservative" seem to take the time to consider why people in the past felt differently from themselves.  Fundamentally, this is more of a refusal than just ignorance to consider points of views from a time that people needn't consider and a misguided belief that all things can be broken down into a few simple categories that remain undisputed throughout history.  There are good guys and bad guys.  It is black and white, there is no room for grey.  Rather ironically, in the end both sides agree on one thing: that the enlightened elites whose revision they support are in the moral right and that the opposition was universally bad.  It's a narrative that by nature is pro-hierarchy and designed to justify all negative acts against people who didn't feel the same way about their side on the grounds that "they deserved it".
[/avoid Class War rant]

Basically, the reason why smugness exists in such a large scale among the politically devout, whether it be libertarian (I could go all day long about the flaws with libertarian bias, if need be), progressive, conservative, etc. etc. etc. etc. is because people see things through rose tinted eyeglasses that depicts the world universally in alignment with their own thoughts and actions and that any deviance from it is an abnormality worthy of damnation.  Holy hell Batman, I could barely read the preview of this post through the crimson red coloration of my eyes.

EDIT: For the record, I've talked to PR lots of times over issues like this.  He's actually one of the more intelligent posters on the board who does take sh*t in context.  I'm sure he just wants to know why some Libertarians are so absolutist and rigid in their thinking.  He'd probably be one of the first, in private, to admit there are a lot of pretentious "progressives" out there.  Hell, he brought up the progressive fear of immigrant Socialists to me about two years ago in an IRC chat.

Of course you can't judge people on their morality a 100 years ago but how does that fly in theory of moral absolutionism/relativism? Could it simply be that there is a right and wrong, but no one is perfect and no one will know it until the Second Coming or whatever you believe and that time is a context but not a shield from judgment?

Does time simply determine who is left, not who is right?

[Mechaman]

In response to Angry Weasel:

Possibly.  I can not possibly comment.

[Deus Naturae]

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.

Damn it!  Am I really going to agree with a post made by TJ?

I agree with the bolded part especially when talking about American history.  This shouldn't be surprising when one actually considers the root of American "Progressivism", which was pretty much a self-righteous crusade by upper crust WASP types in both parties to contain the influence of the dirty radical socialist immigrant tides that presented a clear danger to American Capital.  If you can't beat them by brutal police force or government agents, throw them a metaphorical bone every once in a while to prevent them from getting "restless".  By the same mark, today's "progressives" seem to read a version of history where they and their liberal protestant Yankee Republican ancestors were responsible for the salvation of all mankind from the forces of white southern and Catholic reactionary racist capitalistic bigotry.  Since then, naturally, the parties have flipped whereby the enlightened educated non-bigoted liberal elites are now Democrats and their dumbass racist theocratic conservative prole opponents are now Republicans.

A lot of conservatives don't do themselves much justice either, who don't seem to be able to consider that times have changed either.  You can see such a problem inherent in people like Oldiesfreak, who can't seem to process the differences between political parties from the 19th century with those that existed in the mid-late 20th century.  It's almost like an inverse of the above.  There might be a few who think the Civil War was justified and it was not about slavery, but those are a minority compared to those who believe (and you'll see this regurgitated by talking heads all the freaking time) that Republicanism has been consistently for the rights of minorities against the evil always racist segregationist Democrats who should not be trusted because they supported slavery 150 years ago.  On this website, as much sh*t as I will get for this, I must admit that our more conservative posters seem to be more enlightened about taking context into the times with how our political ideologies have developed over time and the whole "judging people by their times".

Consequently, as a result of these inherent reader's point of view bias (my side must always be the ones who were the anti-racists, basically), neither atypical "progressive" or "conservative" seem to take the time to consider why people in the past felt differently from themselves.  Fundamentally, this is more of a refusal than just ignorance to consider points of views from a time that people needn't consider and a misguided belief that all things can be broken down into a few simple categories that remain undisputed throughout history.  There are good guys and bad guys.  It is black and white, there is no room for grey.  Rather ironically, in the end both sides agree on one thing: that the enlightened elites whose revision they support are in the moral right and that the opposition was universally bad.  It's a narrative that by nature is pro-hierarchy and designed to justify all negative acts against people who didn't feel the same way about their side on the grounds that "they deserved it".
[/avoid Class War rant]

Basically, the reason why smugness exists in such a large scale among the politically devout, whether it be libertarian (I could go all day long about the flaws with libertarian bias, if need be), progressive, conservative, etc. etc. etc. etc. is because people see things through rose tinted eyeglasses that depicts the world universally in alignment with their own thoughts and actions and that any deviance from it is an abnormality worthy of damnation.  Holy hell Batman, I could barely read the preview of this post through the crimson red coloration of my eyes.

EDIT: For the record, I've talked to PR lots of times over issues like this.  He's actually one of the more intelligent posters on the board who does take sh*t in context.  I'm sure he just wants to know why some Libertarians are so absolutist and rigid in their thinking.  He'd probably be one of the first, in private, to admit there are a lot of pretentious "progressives" out there.  Hell, he brought up the progressive fear of immigrant Socialists to me about two years ago in an IRC chat.

Of course you can't judge people on their morality a 100 years ago but how does that fly in theory of moral absolutionism/relativism? Could it simply be that there is a right and wrong, but no one is perfect and no one will know it until the Second Coming or whatever you believe and that time is a context but not a shield from judgment?

Does time simply determine who is left, not who is right?

Evaluating actions as right/wrong doesn't necessarily have to be connected to evaluating actors as good/bad or whatever.

[Mechaman]

Evaluating actions as right/wrong doesn't necessarily have to be connected to evaluating actors as good/bad or whatever.

^^^^^
Approve

A lot of people in this country seem to take to this assumption that actions should be evaluated by their actors and not on the basis of the action itself.  Which was the point I was trying to make in my post.

[Marnetmar]

I'm no longer a libertarian and I'm still smug and annoying.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

The answer is that Libertarianism is a naturally smug ideology. Any ideology that thinks it can deduce things from ideas like existance exists has to be smug.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I have yet to see Progressive Realist respond to any post in this thread. Whose smug now?

[Mechaman]

I have yet to see Progressive Realist respond to any post in this thread. Whose smug now?

lol

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I have yet to see Progressive Realist respond to any post in this thread. Whose smug now?

*who's

[Person Man]

Evaluating actions as right/wrong doesn't necessarily have to be connected to evaluating actors as good/bad or whatever.

^^^^^
Approve

A lot of people in this country seem to take to this assumption that actions should be evaluated by their actors and not on the basis of the action itself.  Which was the point I was trying to make in my post.

The entire "Only Nixon could go to China" thing?  Or better yet, the entire Russian Novel of an idea that are murderer can still be a good person.

[King]

I don't find libertarians smug at all.  They're more abrasive and meanspirited than anything.

[dead0man]

I can't believe the OP hasn't responded to any of the comments yet.  What a douche.  Libertarians are smug, but he can't even be bothered to read his own thread?  At least we know he's not trolling, but it does prove he's an asshole.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I can't believe the OP hasn't responded to any of the comments yet.  What a douche.  Libertarians are smug, but he can't even be bothered to read his own thread?  At least we know he's not trolling, but it does prove he's an asshole.

The poutrage is strong I see.

[dead0man]

It is easier to dodge and insult than it is to actually discuss the topic you brought up isn't it?

[AggregateDemand]

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.

Your understanding of self-interest is not much more sophisticated than Nash's version of self-interest. It wasn't good for his mental health. In the end, he admitted that even Soviet totalitarians have more self-restraint than he imagined possible.

Libertarians are sometimes smug because they know that every government in the history of man has failed, often due to its own regulatory incompetence. Individuality grows stronger. The power of voluntary contract and market-based economics grow stronger.

Statists are engaged in a pointless Sisyphean task. They will learn or they will keep rolling the boulder up the hill for the rest of eternity.

[knight4444]

Why are most libertarians so annoying and smug? because the vast majority of them are caucasians who are so consumed!!  by their white privilege, that their false illusions of superiority flows from their mouths like SH#T from a goose! libertarians want to destroy government because the feel like they're superior! LMFAO when in reality, their ayn rand philosophy is BS! it's just white privilege on steroids

[IceSpear]

Why are most libertarians so annoying and smug? because the vast majority of them are caucasians who are so consumed!!  by their white privilege, that their false illusions of superiority flows from their mouths like SH#T from a goose! libertarians want to destroy government because the feel like they're superior! LMFAO when in reality, their ayn rand philosophy is BS! it's just white privilege on steroids

I presume you got here by googling "why are libertarians so annoying?"

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Smug libertarians are at least smug on an equal opportunity basis toward the beliefs of the vast majority of the public and seem to know they are a distinct minority, which I find a lot less annoying than the Samantha Bee/Seth Myers type of smugness that assumes everyone who isn't far below average intelligence or a cartoon villain already agrees with them.