ZDawgWhat is your opinion on Libertarianism?
Cowbee [he/they]If you mean the Statesian, pro-capitalist kind, it’s mostly a silly ideology pushed by small business owners and other highly individualist classes that are nonetheless pushed towards the working classes by competing against ever-growing monopolies.
The left wing version, I disagree with as you can’t dismantle the state without removing the basis of the state, class, and you can’t remove class without collectivizing production and distribution. Small, local cells loosely organized in a decentralist fashion would still result in class struggle and thus a form of state to hold one class over the others. That said, the leftists are valuable allies at times despite disagreements.
MyMindIsLikeAnOceanThe first “definition” doesn’t fit the group you’re trying to define. If you’re talking about American (using the Us as shorthand)…they are by no means restricted to small business owners, that’s but a small (albeit with outsized power) enclave in the “coalition”. Their policy ideologically empirically opposes the working class.
There’s no lefti wing version of the word, or rather, the proper definition is leftist. What you’re describing seems to be an ideological axe you have to grind with Marxism, or socialism something. Actual libertarianism is simply a school of thought - a collection of philosophies - that prioritize individual liberty (freedom). Generally these philosophies aren’t related to American libertarianism/freedom…it’s more of a freedom *from rather than a freedom to* thing…to oversimplify: leftist (real) libertarians believe power structures shouldn’t impede the (not obstructive and lawful) activists of the people - it’s very conscious of power differentials, while American libertarians believe in an absolute right to individual freedom that may or may not conflict with other peoples’ freedoms - after that point of tension it comes down to functional power (thus it’s antithetical to the proper definition).
First off, you’re a bit confused here. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, my critiques are from that framework.
As for the libertarian movement in the States, I was referring to who makes up the basis of that movement. The wealthiest capitalists are usually not libertarians, they enjoy strong state control and regulations that they can fix in their favor. The basis of libertarianism is in the small business owners, the petite bourgeoisie, who see little of the systems benefits while trying to retain their privledged positions over others.
I’m well-aware of what you define as “actual” libertarians, and my critique of them is from a Marxist point of view. I’m not an anarchist, while I enjoy working with anarchists and share a common enemy, our strategies and analysis end up in fundamentally different areas.
The reason I broke them up as I did was because OP was vague enough that they could be asking for either, so I answered both.
You’re just not accurately describing American libertarianism…it does, indeed, have wealthy people behind it, because American libertarians also loves a strong state that can fix regulations in their favour. Peter Thiel and some of the Koch’s are “libertarians”, ffs.
I think what’s happening here is you’re describing the Dave Smith party/partisan type libertarians, and not the movement at large. The niche that runs a presidential candidate and puts small business owners on stage at the convention is a “boutique” brand of libertarianism, and doesn’t represent the much larger group of people who, for example, Donald Trump shows up and tries to woo: yeah, he got bood in the building…but he was talking to all the libertarians who were threatening to abandon his coalition.
I mean…I stand by what I said…your definitions weren’t accurate…but knowing that you’re a Marxist now means this is likely just an “academic” issue. Your leftist definition was confusing without that context.
I don’t care for anarchists, really…even tho I occasionally caucus with them. I used to hate them as much as right libertarians - horse shoe theory and all - but I’ve softened because it’s time to coalesce…strategy almost doesn’t matter any more…we need action. I’m am super thankful they haven’t been polluting “our” protests to the degree they used to.
It isn’t just academic, and the fact that you can find self-professed libertarians among the wealthiest capitalists doesn’t mean they agree with the actual ideas of “small government capitalism.” The wealthiest aren’t libertarians, by and large, but at this moment more fascist than anything. What drives someone to be a libertarian? Someone who feels crushed by the state while also disapproving of social services, ie the small business owners.
The fact that libertarianism is primarily driven by small business owners doesn’t mean they are the only libertarians. Marxism-Leninism is a proletarian ideology, but also has class traitors. The boutique libertatianism you speak of isn’t just the conventions, but people you run into in real life from time to time, and they usually are in that sole proprietor/small business owner class.
As for Marxism, Marx outlined the law of value, dialectical and historical materialism, as well as scientific socialism. He didn’t create a model, correct, but he did arm us with how we should go about creating a socialist state. Marxism has been put into practice by groups like the bolsheviks, creating Marxism-Leninism, which then has been put into practice around the world. Marx was helpful not just for the why of capitalism being bad, but how to end it and begin socialism.
Yeah…we’re just characterizing them differently. It’s all mud…because they’re all dishonest. Whether they’re MAGA or fascist or libertarian depends on the lens/forum etc. I’d imagine half of the people who call themselves libertarians just like the word because they want to own the word liberty and own the definition of “freedom”. It’s like that bullshit “we’re not a Democracy we’re a Republic” stuff - they don’t know what any of these words mean, they just want to sound like they’re smart and principled when they’re really just bigoted, selfish and hypocritical.
I mean…I’m never going to agree that “small business owners” are the core of the libertarian movement…because small business functionally doesn’t even exist. Most of these idiots calling themselves small business owners or entrepreneurs are just glorified employees or franchise managers. We know the entire movement has big big money behind it…and the small business fantasy is what they’re using as window dressing.
As for Marx…you well know that if you put any two leftists in a room they’re going to disagree on what’s important from all of Marx’s and his associated philosophers and economists’ writings. Marx was a visionary…and I almost liken him more to Gene Roddenberry, than I do a practical economist. Like…he gets into the nitty gritty about transitional social credits and all that, but it’s a type of fiction. I, like I said before, view Marxism and it’s offshoots as a necessary lens to view capitalism through. I think it was really cool what came out of Germany after reunification, and it’s sad to see the capitalists chip away at what they achieved. I’d love to see the day where we reach a critical mass and socialism is attempted in earnest…we just haven’t really seen that and I know I won’t (I’m 53).
Libertarianism isn’t driven by the haute bourgeoisie though, that’s currently more neoliberalism and fascism. Libertarianism is primarily driven by people that own HVAC companies with a dozen people, and these people can be steered by Thiel types but ultimately by numbers its the small business owners pushing it.
As for Marxism, Germany post-reunification was a return to fascism, not socialism. The gains achieved by the socialists in the East were erased, officials excised in show trials, and erased. Socialism has been achieved already, in the former USSR, and today in the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, and more. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economies, and the working classes are in control of the state. I think you’re dramatically misanalyzing socialism right now.
I think maybe we can agree that we’re talking about different thing re libertarianism. But I will say…show me one of these supposed small business owners, and I’ll show you an employee or a liar.
Yes, I predicted we’d have a different view of the world…like I said…two leftists can always be trusted to radically disagree about everything. I look at early reunification Germany as a “victory” for the moderation of capitalism…but I will agree that the fascists put what they needed to in place to destroy the socialists that the “liberals” accepted, at first.
I’ll never agree that Russia was socialist…nor will I agree that China is. They had/have very heavy socialist elements…but Russia was ultimately an oligarchical kleptocracy and China is a weird hybrid that celebrates capitlmalism at the party level…and uses socialism to control the masses. If I were to view a state as a socialist success…I’d need to see the party/power apparatus less entrenched, and the leaders of the day living like the people. I believe that Latin American socialism could have been great…had it not been perpetually obfuscated and corrupted by the US.
Libertarianism often arises organically, though, not just from the outside. It arises due to class interests. People can manipulate this, and do, but the origins are ultimately petty bourgeois ideology.
As for the USSR, it was a socialist economy, not an “oligarchical kleptocracy.” The economy was democratically run and centrally planned, with public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. This is straightforwardly socialist.
The PRC does not celebrate “capitalism.” The usage of markets and mixed forms of ownership for small and medium firms subservient to the public sector is a form of socialist market economy. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes democratically control the state.
Latin American socialism is great. Cuba is a standout example, and Venezuela and Nicaragua are increasingly socializing. They are under constant siege, but are nevertheless rising.
Ultimately, I’m not sure what you think socialism is for you to have this view so contrary to Marxism.
I think you’re an idealist :)
Contrary to Marxism? I think you misread what I’ve said. I think Marx was a visionary, and I’d like to live in his world…I think I’m just more practical than you are.
It’s the opposite, I’m a dialectical materialist, and am focused on pragmatism. Your assessment of the USSR, PRC, etc is idealist in nature and looks at the state not as by its class character, but as something beyond class. This confusion leads you to see administration in a socialist economy as “kleptocracy.” Same with your analysis of the PRC, conflating the presence of private property with the absence of socialism. Erasure of dialectical materialism, and looking at components of an economy outside of their context within said economy is closer to metaphysics and a rejection of Marxism.
Yeah…I just don’t see either state like you do. Both states feature(d) too many wealthy/powerful people for me to consider them entirely socialist. They’re both hybrids…like every state. The USSR heavily featured oligarchs who stole from the people, and who worked against the peoples’ interest on a mass scale. China features a party system that does the same, to a lesser degree.
I think Cuba is a pretty good example of what I’d like to see in a socialist state, minus the ongoing American “meddling”. I wish they didn’t have to rely on tourism to survive, tho…don’t like the classes it creates. Would be much better if they could trade efficiently.
Socialism is not the absence of wealth. Every state has mixed forms of ownership, but the principle aspect is what’s dominant. The USSR did not have “oligarchs who stole from the people,” they had a socialist economy oriented towards satisfying the needs of everyone. Free education and housing, healthcare, dramatic improvements in infrastructure, huge increases in living standards, all came from the socialist system. Same for the PRC, though their safety nets aren’t as strong. This idea that socialism is about equalitarianism is exactly why you’re being anti-Marxist, Marx railed against equalitarians.
Cuba has a very similar structure and economy to the USSR and PRC, with their own characteristics. The main difference is that they are much smaller and much more cut off.
The USSR absolutely had oligarchs, don’t be absurd. I’m not strictly talking about the Politburo…who stole plenty and took the fall, I’m talking about the oligarchs - who didn’t blink into existence out of the ashes of the USSR - but rather came to be because of what they amassed at the expense of the people during the USRR. The savvy middle managers, the smugglers, the entire KGB. The Art of the Bribe is an excellent book that methodically outlinines how these proto-oligarchs came to be and how they destroyed and corrupted socialism. Telling me about the idealistic version of the USSR isn’t interesting…I’m more interested in reality.
Meh…save the “Marx wasn’t an egalitarian” stuff for the people who aren’t socialists. There absolutely was a very large wealth and power class in the USSR as there is in China now…both would be abhorrent to Marx. There’s a difference between being somewhat better off because you work harder and/or are responsible for administering a novel concept…and literally never working because you have so much power and influence you don’t need to: those people were lousy in the USSR, and exist to a lesser extent in China.
It’s an apples and oranges conversation because it can be argued that the Chinese billionaires hurt their people less than the oligarchs/kleptocrats did in the USSR…but you first must acknowledge they exist - if you want to move past the mass intentions of their systems and have the conversation about how the classes in communist were/are bad and why.
The reason I prefer Cuba isn’t because their system is a superior application of socialism…but rather because Cuba is so small and their rich people tend to be more enmeshed in the population and steal less.
I’m not saying all this because I don’t like socialism and dismiss The USSR and China as failures out of hand - quite the contrary - I’m saying it because socialism is a project that we need to achieve and we have to learn from what’s been done/being tried to achieve it.
I’m not being absurd, you are. You’re defining the mode of production of a majority collectivized and planned economy that was oriented towards satisfying the needs of everyone as a “kleptocracy.” This is ridiculous and requires an extreme level of evidence explaining why such a focus was both put on satisfying everyone’s needs, and on this “kleptocracy” you claim. You’re confusing the capitalists that rose from the ashes of the USSR with the USSR’s mode of production. I’m aware that China has billionaires, and again, you seem to be under the impression that Marxism is about equalitarianism and not about gradually collectivizing production and distribution to satisfy the needs of everyone.
Good reading for you would be China has Billionaires. Marxists don’t deny the struggles of the USSR and PRC, we do learn from them, what we don’t do is dismiss their successes or take liberal perspectives on them like you’re doing here.
I’m aware that you consider yourself a socialist, but your analysis is far from that of a socialist.
I gave you evidence…and you ignored it. I can provide additional evidence beyond ‘54, if you acknowledge those archives.
You believe Marxism allows for the billionaire and political classes in China that control the means of production? Bold.
You don’t “own” Marxism, btw. Most Marxists I know at least acknowledge and criticize the very large problems in the USSR and China. I mean…I also could be considered a Marxist…but I consider myself a post-Marxist because he’s been improved on. I also think we can do better than Marx the man as a foundation - don’t get me started on Lenin, lol. The weird thing is I like Stalin (but Che all the way).
This isn’t zero sum: I’m not saying either is all bad because they have kleptocrats and billionaires. We haven’t even broached the topic of what I think about the USSR and China as a whole (because you’re so hung up on denying their systematic problems in favour of focusing on the positives?) in contrast to what we see in the western democracies (for example) you’re typing as if i condemn them and I prefer the USA, or something…not a thing.
Yes, you indeed linked a US Federally funded liberal historian that is paid to present a certain view of the USSR. If you want sources on the socialist economy of the USSR, and how it was run, here are some great ones:
Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union Today
All much better sources.
I don’t own Marxism, correct. I also study it a great deal, organize in real life with a communist party. I do acknowledge real faults with the USSR and PRC, but I don’t acknowledge fake ones. You should read the essay I linked called China Has Billionaires, it explains China’s position as an early socialist economy and its process of gradually collectivizing production and distribution. The class that controls the state and holds the principle aspects of the economy in China is the proletariat, as it was in the USSR, as it is in Cuba.
You defining Cuba as more correctly socialist because its rich people are poorer is what I mean by you being anti-Marxist, this poverty fetishism isn’t Marxist in the slightest.
That’s a ridiculous way to frame a public university employee…but I’m just going to declare an impasse and drop it if we can’t agree on facts.
Talk about virtue signalling and purity testing, yikes. Still, thank you for the conversation, I will admit I’m a little amused at you trying to “out socialist” me, but I don’t feel I need to list my credentials in return…I’m comfortable with how militantly virulent I am on the subject of socialism ;)
Like I said: put two leftists together, and they’ll find a way to argue. I’ve been guilty of it too…it is what it is.
Not just any public university employee:
Financial support for this research was provided by a number of foundations and organizations, including the National Endowment of the Humanities (NEH), the National Council for Eurasian and East European Research (NCEEER), the Archives and Library of the Hoover Institution for War and Peace at Stanford University, the Kennan Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and the Open Society Archive (Budapest). His first book was Inventing a Soviet Countryside: State Power and the Transformation of Rural Russia, 1917-1929 (2004).
There’s a concerted effort within western academia to keep demonizing socialism, and funding is one of the ways the state keeps that going. I provided more than plenty sources given an alternative view. None of this is about me trying to “out-socialist” you, nor virtue signal nor purity test. It’s about trying to come to a consistent understanding grounded in reality, from a proletarian point of view, rather than accepting liberal framing of socialism.
Seem like he’s a typical academic. I get it…you prefer to muddy the waters and shoot the messenger then engage with the content. Alternate view to…something you didn’t read? I assure you it doesn’t “demonize socialism”…it just chronicles events according to disclosure/a “data dump” of declassified files. It’s not ideological…it’s for eggheads who don’t want to read thousands of documents. When I read it it just helped me understand the playing field better.
The problems with the USSR weren’t with socialism, you’re missing my message. They were with capitalists corrupting it from within. There’s certainly an argument to be made that too much control was allocated to regional bureaucrats - when targeted positive/idealistic authoritarianism was more appropriate while socialism was in its infancy. But this in the context of just Russia, because I don’t agree with the expansion that created the USSR: my opinion is it created an unmanageably large state with too many “distracting” regional issues that were ripe for capitalists to exploit. Those faithful to the cause were simply stretched too thin and they couldn’t deliver a meaningful improvement to enough people, largely because the guilty regional bureaucrats weren’t loyal to the cause and they created systematic exploitation of the people they were tasked to help. Obviously I’m being unrealistic…just trying to get closer to 20/20 hindsight.
QuentinCallaghanI don’t think libertarianism works, it relies naively on how the free market is omnipotent, how freedom is everything and how having a small government is somehow good. There are no countries that are entirely libertarian, that also tells a lot about the ideology’s applicability in practice. A brilliant book about why libertarianism doesn’t work is a book “A Libertarian Walks into a Bear”. In the book, a group of libertarians decides to take over the small town of Grafton in New Hampshire en masse as part of their “Free Town Project”. Of course this group cares neither about the town’s original inhabitants nor their rights. What’s the result? They hollow out pretty much everything from the library, to the school, the fire department and the police. No regard is given to any laws on hunting or food disposal, and that lures in bears, who turn so aggressive that they invade people’s homes. In addition to bears, sex offenders and all kinds of criminals are also lured into Grafton.
It’s pretty entertaining book, I recommend it.
You forgot to mention that the book is nonfiction, this really happened.
Vanth
bufalo1973“Omnipotent market and little government”
Sounds like Somalia.
It’s funny that in the classic Libertarian novel “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress” the rule free society only works because there are no guns and literally everything is controlled by a single giant computer.
Objectivism creator Ayn Rand ended up on welfare after she lacked the will power to give up smoking.
Need I say more?
CatoblepasSounds great on paper, in practice it’s almost entirely old white men who want to get rid of age of consent laws or people who want to be able to do insane, dangerous to others shit like feeding bears without anyone being able to stop them.
In summary, the ideology of selfish jackasses at best and pedophiles at worst.
Depends on how it’s defined.
Current libertarianism is just rebranded reactionary conservatism.
Classically though, “libertarian” simply referred to someone who advocated for maximum individual liberty and minimum state intervention. The term first gained popularity in the US in the wake of the New Deal, when the term “liberal,” which had up until then referred to that position of maximum individual liberty and minimum state intervention, was coopted by leftist authoritarians. Since the classical liberals needed a new term, they shifted to “libertarian.” And notably, at that point, libertarians were at least as likely to be left-wing as right, with the two groups merely splitting on which specific government services should be counted among the minimum.
That started to go wrong when the Libertarian party was established, and finished going wrong when the Tea Party was transformed from a series of protests against the Wall Street bailouts to a traveling carnival of hate.
And there’s also the political compass sense of “libertarian” as simply the opposite of authoritarian, by which I’m as “libertarian” as it’s possible to be. It should be noted though that in recent years, mostly through meme communities, even that conception of “libertarian” has been increasingly characterized as more of an alternate authoritarianism.
So there’s a conception back behind each use of the term “libertarian” that is at least close to mine (I’m actually an anarchist). But IMO not coincidentally, the term has been in all cases warped to refer to some form of authoritarianism, which I unequivocally oppose.
I have to push back a bit that the core of the proper definition of libertarianism is freedom from the state. It’s isn’t/wasn’t. The state plays an essential role in functional libertarianism, for what should be obvious reasons.
I have to push back a bit that the core of the proper definition of libertarianism is freedom from the state.
I’m not sure why you feel a need to push back against something I didn’t say.
“…minimum state intervention…” isn’t part of the definition. That’s a value judgement and a concept that gets thrown around by the idealists. The concept of libertarianism was invented to moderate a necessary and ubiquitous state, and can’t exist without one.
You defined classical libertarianism or right libertarianism, which grew up to be what we see as The Libertarian Party in the USA today, for example. It was “rebranded” specifically to add the notion of “minimal state intervention” - to make themselves distinct from libertarians (who functionally existed, at that time). Much like classical liberals, classical libertarians are antithetical to the definition of their namesake.
I think Libertarianism is incompatible with the way that humans operate as a society. Almost all flavors of libertarianism puts an individual’s right to live as they choose as long as that doesn’t violate the rights of others through force or fraud. Humans like to associate themselves into groups, and in almost any group there will be an imbalance in power, whether that’s economic power, physical power (strength), or even something as abstract as eloquence or how outgoing you are. The issue then becomes that someone somewhere has to enforce the right to not be forced into giving up rights. In the classical construction of how libertarians view government, it is very easy to become more powerful than those meant to enforce limits on power. Even in our current political system, you see this when companies will spend more on their anti-trust court cases than the entire FTC spends total in a decade. Libertarianism has no mechanism to keep the enforcer the most powerful party involved
I can only speak for America, but here they’re all a bunch of corporate-sponsored anarchy LARPers.
I mean…that says it all.
Sure, the seemingly benevolent small business owners feature highly at the conventions…but behind the curtains it’s really a coalition of rich guys, gun nuts, NAMBLAs, zoophiles, etc. in a stuffed cheap suit.
watsonIt’s depends on what you mean…it’s a fraught term, to say the least.
Actual definition of the word…or the Ron Paul (etc) nuts?
It’s dumb.
It is an ideology for selfish amoral oppotunists
AntiOutsideAktionPedophiles trick children into thinking they’re libertarians because cops are bad and weed is good
Cops are badly out of control and weed should be allowed if someone chooses to do it but yes I agree that libertarianism is stupid.
Works wonderfully if you’re profit. The free markets love you and will do anything for you.
Oh, you’re a people? Have you heard of our Lord and Savior profit? If you’re not helping profit then you must be hurting it, therefore hurting the market. We don’t take kindly to the likes of you.
The “I can bring myself low enough to identify as republican anymore”.
Still a conservative if not even now leaning harder to the right.
They are house cats. Utterly and totally dependent upon a system that they have absolutely no appreciation or respect for.
Left libertarianism is great and serves as an effective counterbalance to many issues. Right libertarianism is often foolish at best and rarely includes the freedom to do things like live your life as you please
dreadbeef
EveryMuffinIsNowEncryptedI think it’s nonsense.
The “free market” is never truly free, and if there isn’t something holding the capitalist class back, they will always dominate the working class until the system just breaks. The only way for a stable society to exist is for checks and balances.
Anyone I’ve ever heard talking about the non-aggression principle spat red flags faster than a machine gun.
At best, they’re truly so dense and unsympathetic they don’t recognize actions that aren’t directly or intentionally causing harm do still cause harm (example, the free state project people leaving food out for black bears “because they can” without thought for their neighbors who then have to deal with more bears). At worst, it’s rape apologia (crap like statutory rape doesn’t exist because that minor “totally asked for it” and the rape didn’t cause physical damage).
Libertarians are grumpy indoor cats. They’re violently independent and want to be left alone, but their survival is also entirely dependent on the systems surrounding them, which they completely take for granted.
The grumpy indoor cat doesn’t want your attention, they just want their auto-feeder to activate like it always does. Never mind the fact that you’re the one who keeps the auto-feeder filled. They don’t care about that, they just care that the auto-feeder dispenses food.
On a TV series, a cowboy libertarian explains his being libertarian to a rich evil lady. She smiles and exclaims “you are all a bunch of toddlers! Wanting to suckle on other peoples tits and being treated as adults, while having none of the responsibility of being one”.
Horse {they/them}if you know someone who calls themself a libertarian, ask them how they feel about the age of consent then immediately seize their hard drive
“libertarians generally advocate for minimal government regulation, believing that businesses should operate freely and regulate themselves through voluntary exchange and competition. They argue that over-regulation can stifle innovation and economic growth.”
So in my opinion, they are dumbasses. Yeah let’s get the Nestles and Monsanto’s of the world to regulate themselves. Honestly just unserious people with no critical thinking skills in my opinion.
Lettuce eat lettuceLeft wing (actual OG) Libertarianism is great. Right wing Libertarianism is basically a bunch of antisocial/intellectually lazy people who think the ideal society is one where everybody has a few acres of land with a little shack that they built themselves where they subsist on potatoes, carrots, and chicken eggs and stockpile gold and silver to trade with another libertarian twice a year.
That description looks too close to some videogame.
I’ve known a bunch of them and I think their ideology is fine on the surface, but full of small contraddictions, for example:
- they believe freedom is the utmost important thing, but their freedom is always threatened so they always should do what they do want, even if that limits other people freedom. For example: I should not be forced to pay taxes if I don’t want because noone should be forced to pay for a “service”, it should always be a choice (but if my country gives me healthcare without paying taxes, I should also use the service). However, things like paying tolls for private highway is also bad, because one should be able to go wherever they want withou paying. See the problem in this?
- they don’t believe in “rights” as anything imposed from the top is bad. If a category is persecuted (black people, gays, whatever) they should not be protected, but fight on their own
- according to them, in true capitalism, free market is perfect and the most just, and monopolies will not happen on free market. Now they happen only because laws allow them to “manipulate” the narket.
- they often spiral down alt-right conspiracies theory with a libertarian flavour, like a deep-state working hard to limit even more your freedom, or everything even remotely “politically correct” (even things like protection against protection against being fired because you are homosexual) is woke propaganda and also aimed to limit your freedom.
My own little consipracy theory is that libertarianism was crafted by the US alt-right to subtly manipulate people into fascism, the premises are all there: hatred for the current state, bigotry, extreme victimism, a willingness to strip down thenselves of hard-fought rights and a hustle/grinding mentality to slave yourself down to work and enrich other people
Absolutely bat shit insane you say?
The most virtuous profession to be, in libertarian logic, is scammer. Big money gain for little effort, therefore good.
Working together is not allowed in individualism. Everyone must be a untrustworthy scammer out for the other’s money, as that’s what libertarians think everyone aspires to be.
PolandIsAStateOfMindIn Poland most libertarians are at best petty bougie failchildren thinking they would be billionaires when they grow up, those that do grow up without touching grass (or too dense to feel the grass) are usually turning into unhinged austrian cultists with monarchist and nazist inclinations. Deeply unserious people