If Ayn Rand's own life wasn't enough to show that libertarianism is a failed idea, we now have further evidence.
If Ayn Rand's own life wasn't enough to show that libertarianism is a failed idea, we now have further evidence.
Of course, the underlying conclusion here is "Humans are such dogmatic non-cooperators that they are literally incapable of solving even simple coordination problems without someone standing over them with a big stick."
Not really a good solution to that other than "let the stupid bastards die off and give the dogs a chance to run the world".
"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn't that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people."
And thus we have libertarian transhumanism: the attempt to develop a people capable of functioning without a bunch of jackbooted jackasses telling them what to do all the time.
Can't be that hard, right?
...right?
I've never seen a libertarian in real life who approaches that. Most that I've seen are simps for rich capitalists who are anti regulation. Are there many of them, or just a small fringe?
It sounds surprisingly like anarchism.