Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You

Okay, I know I said I’d reserve this site for only my own thoughts, but if I hadn’t read this guy’s article first, I’d have ended up saying exactly these same things on my own anyway!


From the famous “Anarchist, Atheist, Asshole,” Christopher Cantwell:

Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You

People often complain about libertarians being rude and obnoxious. It’s not nearly as widespread a problem as some would make it out to be, and contrary to popular belief, this did not begin with me. To the extent that it does exist, I have become to many this sort of picture of the asshole libertarian who doesn’t give a shit about your feelings or opinions. So I figured I’d put this list together of why libertarians aren’t nice to you. Even libertarians who are nice to you, I think will get a kick out of it, because despite their outward appearances, they are every bit as frustrated with your statism as we are. Feel free to bookmark it and produce it every time you hear someone make this complaint.

Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You Because,

The Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren't Nice To You

10. Ridicule works.

Believe me when I tell you, we would really prefer it if mankind were a rational creature that responded to reason and evidence. If that were the case, we would have already won this debate, and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. The State would not exist, and there would be no political arguments pertaining to it.

What we have observed from watching your elections and propagandists, is that there’s more of a “that guy sucks so you should support me!” type of psychology behind all of this. Leftists call everybody who opposes them fascists, and racists, and religious nuts, and homophobes, and greedy. Rightists call everybody who opposes them socialists, and enemies of God, they promote xenophobia about homosexuals, and immigrants, and foreign countries that they want to go to war with.

It’s unfortunate that this has become the nature of political discord, but that’s the reality we are met with. You folks have obtained such wonderful political success by being completely miserable towards one another, so we figure this is how to win political battles. Thus, we are sort of compelled to work within it. We make fun of you, because that is the nature of political discussions that we have been met with. We tear down your leaders and your people because they promote terrible ideas, and we don’t want people to take you seriously.

9. If you already have an ideology, we’re actually not terribly concerned with convincing you.

Most people have no concept of politics, economics, or philosophy. If they take an interest in these subjects because of something we said, or because they are genuinely interested in finding some kind of objective truth, then we have some hope of bringing them over to our side. Those are the people we are primarily interested in convincing.

stubbornMost people involved in these things aren’t actually interested in finding any sort of objective truth. As far as we’re concerned, the fact that they aren’t already libertarians is evidence enough of this. They chose a side for whatever reason, and they represent their team for better or worse. Liberals don’t tend to become conservatives, conservatives don’t tend to become liberals, and neither tend to become libertarians. At best for us, they try to get libertarians to assist them in their own anti-libertarian political agendas, and they’ve done an excellent job of accomplishing this. Trying to work with you then, generally ends up hurting us, and we’ve learned this lesson too many times to ignore it.

Having an ideology tends to imply some study of the subject at hand. If you have studied government, and determined that it has any potential to do anything positive, this implies you are really not very good at processing information. The failures of the State are so numerous and ridiculously obvious, that we find it difficult to believe any rational person could justify its existence. Your informed adherence to this absurdity tells us that you are pretty much beyond all hope of rescue.

So when libertarians argue with you, it’s not you we’re trying to convince. We’re doing it for the sake of others who might be watching. It gives us the opportunity to put information out there, and while you reject fact, after fact, after fact, we try to make you look like idiots so that others who may be watching have a negative opinion of you and your ideas, so that they do not join your cause and advance them.

voting8. We’re not trying to win elections

Any libertarian who tells you he is trying to win an election is either lying to you about trying to win the election, lying to us about being a libertarian, or terribly misinformed. As far as we’re concerned, elections are a bad thing. We’re trying to end them, not win them.

The nature of the State is to make false promises to bait support from the people it victimizes. They promise to protect you from boogeymen, they promise to solve your economic problems, they promise to carry out the will of your deity. We see this as completely ridiculous, we know it will fail, and we know that most people are stupid enough to swallow it hook line and sinker, so we can’t compete with it in a popular vote.

Libertarians are anarchists, whether they realize it or not. Even the ones who are delusional enough to think that they are going to get elected and restore the bloody republic, are little more than useful idiots who are repeating anarchist propaganda for us through channels normally reserved for government. The goal is not to win your elections, the goal is to turn a large enough minority against the legitimacy of the State as to make its continued function impossible. So there’s absolutely no incentive to work with you in promoting candidates, which is the primary function of your political activity. You’re right when you say “No candidate is good enough” for us, no matter who runs for office we will tear him down because nobody has the right to be our ruler.

repetitive7. We’ve already had this discussion a hundred times

If you had ever bothered to study the works of any of the great libertarian theorists, you wouldn’t be asking us the questions you are asking. You ask “Who will build the roads?” or “What about defense?” you tell us “There is no such thing as utopia” and a lot of other really tired arguments. It shows us that you haven’t taken so much as 10 minutes out of your miserable life to even make the slightest effort to understand what we are proposing.

In the meantime, we are always staying tuned to the propaganda you consume so that we can counter it. We write thoughtful articles, and make informative videos, and produce compelling audio content that explains in great detail what exactly it is your politicians and propagandists are saying, and why it is wrong.

You don’t pay any attention to any of that content because it’s not coming from “your team”, and everyone on “your team” repeats the same propaganda. So every time we get into a political argument, we already know what you’re going to say as soon as we know which team you’re on. We already know what the proper response to your propaganda is, and we already know that you are going to act irrationally when we respond. This is extraordinarily frustrating, because we’ve actually put a great deal of effort into this, and these repetitive arguments are tiring, especially when they yield no results. All those “what ifs” you’re so concerned about, they’re called choices.

The nice thing about freedom is, people get to make their own decisions. We’re not entirely sure why this bothers you so much. Every time you ask us “What if X?” we have a thousand different answers we can give you, if you don’t like the first one, we’re happy to give you another. The whole point is, you get to decide for yourself what suits you best in a market environment.

You have become so used to the State being the arbiter of all things, that you seem to panic at every uncertainty. The funny part about this is, the State hasn’t provided you with any certainty at all. There’s absolute chaos in the world, governments have murdered over 260 million of their own citizens in the last century, not including war, and you’re still freaking out about speed limits.

misescharacterlimit5. I can’t teach you economics in 140 characters or less

The nice thing about the internet is, it allows us to communicate with many people very quickly. The downside is that this instant gratification has led people to believe answers will just be fed to them without any effort. If you really think that you’re qualified to walk into a voting booth and decide who will run the world and how, then you should have the common decency to study economics first.

All these discussions we’re having really boil down to economics. Your politicians and propagandists feed off of your prejudices and religious ideas and emotions because that’s the easiest way to manipulate you into acting against your own best interests. These tactics allow them to operate in a soundbite world and oversimplify matters. For us to explain to you what’s wrong with those soundbites actually requires some understanding of how human beings respond to incentives in a market environment. We produce thousands of pages of text, and countless hours of audio and video explaining these things. The best we can hope for in a tweet is to link you to some of it and hope you read/listen/watch, but you never do, do you?

IQ4. We actually are smarter than you

The Triple Nine Society, an organization whose membership is reserved for people with IQ’s in the top one tenth of one percent, even more discriminating than Mensa, did a survey on the politics of its members. The results don’t surprise us. Members overwhelmingly supported legalizing all drugs, prostitution, and gambling. They supported gun rights, and free markets. They opposed government involvement in medicine, and income taxes.

Government is a scam, and like other scams it relies on the gullibility of its victims. We’re not falling for it, but you are, and your support of that system harms us. Your stupidity literally hurts.

morality23. Our moral superiority is justified

We know that you have some pretty twisted ideas on morality that stem from religious doctrines and other ancient texts, but logically speaking, morality should be consistent. If your moral platform can’t be applied universally, then it really doesn’t make a great deal of sense.

That’s why your politicians, religious leaders, and propagandists are always getting caught doing things that go against the words they speak. Priests get caught having gay sex, socialists acquire vast amounts of wealth, “family values” candidates get caught cheating on their wives, gun control advocates murder millions of people. Their moral platforms are inconsistent, this makes them rather meaningless, and so there is no reason for them to adhere thereto.

Our moral platform is basically just the non initiation of force. As long as we don’t rob, assault, kidnap, and murder, we’re perfectly within our moral code. This is pretty easy for most people, since violence doesn’t appeal to us, and so we rarely end up looking like hypocrites.

ron-paul-alone2. We’re not asking for much

If you want to have people threaten you all the time and tell you what to do, that’s your business. We don’t recommend it or anything, but really you’re more than welcome to submit to someone else’s authority in the absence of the State. We might talk to you about the virtues of freedom, but we’re honestly not trying to force you to be free. All we’re saying is you have no right to force us under the same authority.

By contrast, you want to take our property, force us into wars, “educate” our children, and control our business and personal relationships. You have some really weird idea in your head that this notion of “government” makes that okay, but there is no other circumstance in which you would consider that socially acceptable. We don’t believe in government, so we look at this like any other lunatic trying to do these things to us.

Seriously, what the fuck? Just leave me alone.

riot-police_9-2-081. You always resort to violence

Polite discussion in State politics is an illusion. At the end of this discussion, it really doesn’t matter who’s right or who’s wrong, the person with the superior numbers is going to force their bad ideas on everybody else at gun point. Just imagine doing this in reverse, where you start with a threat instead of ending with it. Nobody would try to be polite about their disagreement under those circumstances.

Since we know we have inferior numbers, and the minority always gets screwed and threatened by democracy, this is exactly what this discussion looks like to us. It begins and ends with the threat of violence, so the fact that we don’t shoot you in the face really speaks volumes to our civility.

You give us absolutely no option for escaping this violence. We are forced to choose between the violence of you, or the violence of someone else. You tell us “Love it or leave it!” or “Move to Somalia!” like I don’t have any right to be left in peace in my own home. The fact of the matter is, if you give us a choice of violence or violence, eventually we’re going to give some violence back to you, and making fun of you on twitter will become the least of your concerns.


About unclevladdi

This entry was posted in Corruption, Crime, economics, Education, Globalization, gun control, human rights, Legal, media, Policy, politics, Privacy, proglodyte, progressive, propaganda, Regulation, religion, Treason, Uncategorized, War and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You

  1. unclevladdi says:

    Arguing with statists is the exact same as arguing with muslims: they’re both really nothing more than criminal gangsters.

  2. You are entitled to your shit feelings. You’re not entitled to your own facts asshole. 😉

  3. SoniaCabrera says:

    • unclevladdi says:

      This guy is simply wrong, and here’s how and why:

      Libertarians believe in individual rights, not group-might-made-“rights.”

      So libertarians don’t “believe” in corporations at all.

      People who form corporations get a “legal” free-pass to remain irresponsibly wrong, simply by dint of being in their gangs!

      Imagine if you or I went before a judge, and asked him: “Your honor, I want to take risks which will only effect others, for gains which will only accrue to myself!”

      Any sane judge would (at the very LEAST) either tell us to get stuffed, or have us arrested for attempting to engineer a criminally-negligent conspiracy.

      BUT, the second we say “WE” want these false rights, and invoke the idolatrous “corporate” alibi excuse to do so, the judge will immediately grant us the false yet “legal” “LLC” (limited liability i.e: limited responsibililty) status, of what is officially known in legal terms as the “Legal Fiction of the Corporate Person!”

      So NO libertarian is for ANY kind of false “legal gang” status at all, ever! Libertarians are completely inherently and instinctively opposed to “group rights!”

      It’s only whiny infantile delinquent statist gang-sucking liberals like this guy who assume that, if libertarians come to power – i.e: if politicial “party” gangs are destroyed in favor or returning power to we the people – that “corporations” would be allowed to remain in existence, in stead of having their corporate “charters”‘ legal protections immediately revoked!



      Also, when I went over to ScrewYouTube to bitch-slap “Saint Dusty” for his libtardations, I belatedly saw someone else had beaten me to it (and now, apparently, Chris Cantwell has also gotten around to joining in the fray:

      “Martin Årvik1 week ago

      1. argument: People are stupid
      The first thing to realise about this argument is that a government does not solve this problem. If people are too stupid to research stuff about which company to buy shit from and whatnot, they are also too stupid to determine whether someone (like a government official) is competent to make such decisions on their behalf. So, if the people are too stupid to appoint competent people that act in their interest, these people must be appointed from the top-down. In other words, this argument claims that fascism and dictatorship is a preferred state of society, which it clearly isn’t.
      2. argument: People are terrible, selfish assholes
      If this is true, then, since the government consists of people, the government must also be terrible and selfish. In other words it cannot serve the noble purpose that it is set out to do.
      3. argument: Corporations are dicks
      This argument fails for a number of reason. First, corporations can only be dicks if they have no competition. If you go to a job interview and you know you will have no competition in getting that job, you would not be particularly concerned with being presentable, whereas if you knew you had a high level of competition, you would try your hardest to be presentable. Second, given the first reason, governments must be dicks, because the government has no competition. Third, even if say that corporations have no incentive to take care of the environment and whatnot, what incentive does a government have to take care of the environment? Look at one of the greatest governments in history, for instance: the Soviet Union did not give a shit about the environment, they just dumped a huge amount of radioactive material into the ocean.
      “Government is not evil” False, the government is evil, as it is fundamentally an institution based on violence. The government uses force to extrapolate money from the people through taxation, because, if you don’t pay, they will send people with guns to kidnap you.
      4. argument. “There is a reason why every country in the world has a government”
      Yeah, and there is a reason why every country in the world has a religion, but that reason is not that religion is good, it is because the delusions from the past carry momentum into the future.
      5. argument: “What about the poor people?”
      The government cannot help poor people for a simple reason. When the government steals from the wealthy to pay for health care and such, the wealthy people lose incentive to be productive because they get paid less than they work for. At the same time, poor people also lose incentive to be productive, since they can get a lot of money without doing much work. Therefore, the whole society become less wealthy.
      6. argument: “what about education”
      Government education is shit. I don’t know what else to tell you.
      “The government should do whatever it takes to make it’s citizens happy”
      Yeah, Stalin had a great way of doing this, you just kill all the people who are unhappy.
      Another thing that is for the greater good is, if, in a room there were 10 people; 1 healthy person and 9 sick people who each need a new organ to become well, then it becomes for the greater good to kill the healthy person and give each of the ill people the organ they require. But, obviously, this is a rather disgusting action. So, the greater good does not justify violation of property.”

      • QuotingIslam says:

        If far right of left commentary is the admin of this Facebook page “Far Right of Left” then an admin in that page kicked me out when I simply mentioned that the Religious Right has unfortunately hijacked the TeaParty platform… An admin replied “Good!” (no bueno btw!)

      • unclevladdi says:

        No doubt they did, but (at least for now) I like to let people post their insanity here in public, for all the world to see. If they keep it up, thoug, using on ly the usual critical thinking logical fallacies (ad-hominem personal attacks, knee-jerk tu quoque deflections) and so have nothing to add to the discussions, I’ll toast their comments but only simply for lack of content.

  4. dajjal says:

    Anarchists are in the nutzoid zone. Ron Paulists are their close cousins at best. Letting the baser instincts run free has disastrous social consequences as do repressive Socialist regimes. Jefferson & Madison came up with something better; we should have maintained it. Canucks should have emulated it.

    • unclevladdi says:

      Canucks are servile idolaters worshipping their owners, the Bitish Royals. Why do you think I prefer to comment on America? Because Canada is a “soft” socialist tyranny, and getting anyone up here to stand up for them selves is almost impossible. I doubt even a Canadian Reichstagg moment would do it.


      Besides, you already know my simple, two-step solution to the democracy deficit: elimiate the already-illegal political parties entirely; we’d still have a government, but it would be a truly DIRECT democracy, for the first time, (and Yes I know you prefer to be known as a Republic, but never got around to enshrining “my” version of the Golden Rule of Law as the one unchangeable natural justice law to base it on down there either, now didja?)!


      • dajjal says:

        I thank God that my great grandfather had the wisdom to leave England and Canada. Democracy is mob rule. Direct popular decision only works on a very small local scale. Our republican form is the best system for a large nation. The problem is failure to maintain its limits.

      • unclevladdi says:

        Like I said, though: direct democracy will only work when people accept they cannot choose to legislate away the most basic moral principle, that of the Golden Rule of Law (to not attack first)! Once that’s enshrined as THE#1 and ONLY principle of the Republic, you’ll get to keep that Republic; while, without it: NOT!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s