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.

[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.

[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.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I just realized the OP still posts here....how embarrassing this must be.  He STILL hasn't responded.

lol

It's OK though; most of the people whom I was originally thinking of when I started this thread have metamorphosised into the white supremacist/"Alt Right" horror that we all have come to know so well. Which makes sense when you think about it, since Ron Paul himself is basically a neo-Confederate (remember those newsletters??). This is what happens when you think civil rights/human rights are subordinate to (private) property rights.

But don't worry, I don't see you as being part of the aforementioned group! Even if you are a contrarian Gen X'er with terrible politics, you're certainly no "deplorable."

[All Along The Watchtower]

I just realized the OP still posts here....how embarrassing this must be.  He STILL hasn't responded.

lol

It's OK though; most of the people whom I was originally thinking of when I started this thread have metamorphosised into the white supremacist/"Alt Right" horror that we all have come to know so well. Which makes sense when you think about it, since Ron Paul himself is basically a neo-Confederate (remember those newsletters??). This is what happens when you think civil rights/human rights are subordinate to (private) property rights.

But don't worry, I don't see you as being part of the aforementioned group! Even if you are a contrarian Gen X'er with terrible politics, you're certainly no "deplorable."

Wow! You're so smart that humor(including irony) is lost on you!!!

This is very cute coming from a garbage-tier poster.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I think the big problem with the bumper sticker Libertarian phrases is they don't really reflect the ideology as a whole, and therefore create the confusion that really showed up the Libs in 2016. I find leftist and liberal mantras annoying and trite as well, but they are "honest" in the sense you get a picture of what liberals like (gun control, minimum wage, lgbt rights, single payer, climate change etc) and what they don't like.

A lot of libertarian propaganda (using the term in its neutral sense) tried to emphasise its role as an almost centrist ideology: the phrase fiscally conservative but socially liberal comes to mind. But unfortunately it's not really an accurate portrayal of libertarianism, and it led the party into a very awkward ticket in 2016, where libertarianism just became a messy coalition of woke conservatives making kissy faced appeals to establishment conservatives while also trying to keep their devotees.

If libertarianism is going to take off as a popular ideology, it needs more mantras than being secular and pro-marijuana, neither of which are going to be huge issues that will swing the population as a whole.

The problem is that being secular and pro-marijuana is already popular - especially among the younger generations, including among younger Republicans to an increasing extent. So what else can Libertarians campaign on?

It's hard enough for a remotely coherent small third party to develop among Libertarians. Imagine them trying to build a mass party (or "realistically", take over one of the two major ones).

IMO the future of Libertarianism in mainstream American politics is them becoming a competing faction (or rather, factions - Libertarians are like modern Marxists in that sense) within the Republican Party, while their most popular ideas (which are few, as you alluded to) are completely assimilated into the coalitions of both major parties, to one extent or another.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Also: trying to achieve political power purely via ideological rigidity is impossible in most places, and in the US system in particular. The only way to build a mass coalition is through...well, mass politics, which are inherently populist and thus repugnant to people whose ideology leans toward extreme individualism and dogmatically anti-government positions.

Or, to put it another way; you're never going to win many votes with a platform of "the government exists solely to preserve and protect private property rights - especially not in this era of record-breaking economic inequality, steep decline in social mobility for most of the population, and a form of politics that is forming as a result, and across the political spectrum.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Mini-bump:

In my not-so-humble opinion, there's something disturbingly authoritarian (not merely undemocratic) about Libertarianism (as American businessmen and their many allies and advocates - paid and unpaid - in certain economics departments and on the Internet, etc. define the term) in its insistence that the only legitimate functions of the State are (a) national defense, and the closely related (b) protection and upholding of private property rights.

These are literally the most authoritarian functions of the State: punishing people who are or are deemed to be security threats as well as punishing people who infringe on the legally and politically defined and enshrined rights of property owners. Can anyone honestly dispute that dogmatically upholding private property rights will inevitably protect a tiny, already extremely powerful economic elite (ie. the people who own the most property - land, wealth, financial assets, means of production/capital, etc.) from everyone else?

What good is "freedom" or "liberty" when you have to pay-to-play to have it in the first place -
- or any substantial amount of it, at least, especially in terms of economic and political power and influence? Is this state of affairs not inherently authoritarian?

[All Along The Watchtower]

TIL I'm a Communist (heavily implied by dead0man's post) because "the State is my savior" and I want it to "take people's stuff" or something.

I'd encourage everyone here to look up the differences between personal property and private property. And that distinction is not merely a Marxist one (though yeah, they make a big deal of it, but they're not alone).

[All Along The Watchtower]

Mini-bump:

In my not-so-humble opinion, there's something disturbingly authoritarian (not merely undemocratic) about Libertarianism (as American businessmen and their many allies and advocates - paid and unpaid - in certain economics departments and on the Internet, etc. define the term) in its insistence that the only legitimate functions of the State are (a) national defense, and the closely related (b) protection and upholding of private property rights.

These are literally the most authoritarian functions of the State: punishing people who are or are deemed to be security threats as well as punishing people who infringe on the legally and politically defined and enshrined rights of property owners. Can anyone honestly dispute that dogmatically upholding private property rights will inevitably protect a tiny, already extremely powerful economic elite (ie. the people who own the most property - land, wealth, financial assets, means of production/capital, etc.) from everyone else?

What good is "freedom" or "liberty" when you have to pay-to-play to have it in the first place -
- or any substantial amount of it, at least, especially in terms of economic and political power and influence? Is this state of affairs not inherently authoritarian?

#iamconvinced