It's noteworthy that nobody seems to be arguing against the premise that libertarians do act like autists/spergs.
This thread itself demonstrates that they do so. Any discussion of how libertarians behave, how they alienate people, how they are their own worst enemies, how their personalities and attitudes limit their behavior, etc. they immediately turn into a discussion about what they believe, and how it makes them morally superior, how you just don't understand the principles, how you haven't read enough Rothbard or Spooner to have a meaningful opinion on the ideology, and other diversions and distractions away from the original subject. In short: "You guys are obsessive weirdos" is instantly and reflexively countered with "You're a statist!" followed by a ten-minute obsessively detailed rant on muh principlez!.
Libertarians are generally incapable of processing nonverbal social cues and direct verbal feedback about how they go about presenting their ideas, mistaking the judgments of behavior with judgments of the ideas.
Thus Diagnosis:Autism.
I know a handful of real libertarians personally (party members, not the "small-l libertarian" types a lot of disaffected small-government/pro-liberty Republicans label themselves as) and have dozens more as acquaintances. To a man (because none are women) they are like this. Ever been to a libertarian happy hour? Yes, such things exist, and they are miserable. It's a bunch of young, bitter, humorless, ideas-obsessed loser men trying to out-lecture each other on how hairsplittingly ideologically "purer" they are. If a woman walks into the room, they'll be shocked and amazed at this development and swarm this strange, exotic creature. Eventually one contextual-alpha from the pack will elbow past the others and perform the libertarian mating dance: he'll literally back her into a corner or up against the wall by invading her personal space, hectoring her on "muh principles" without her being able to escape, believing this will impress her into sleeping with him, wholly unaware that her averted gaze into the distance is not one of longing mixed with careful consideration of his deep philosophical pronouncements but rather that of someone in an intolerably painful situation fixating on a "comfort object"...in this case, the glowing green "EXIT" sign and its promise of blissful escape.
But while autism or aspergers (colloquially rather than clinically defined) might fit, I'm coming around to the belief that it's less that than that they're simply gammas. How does one define a gamma?
1. never wrong about anything
2. others are always wrong about everything
3. always better than others, in some contrived or hairsplitting way
4. anklebiters who shy away from any actual confrontation
5. secret kings who would rule in a just and fair world
6. never responsible for their own failures or failings
7. impervious to criticism and self-analysis
And how have we been describing the "spergy" behavior of libertarians?
1. never wrong about anything - their principles are pure and perfect, you just don't understand them..."go read some Rothbard and educate yourself, moron!"
2. others are always wrong about everything - anyone not 100% on board with their own individual belief-set is dismissed as a statist (which, ironically, rejects the individuality of their interlocutor in favor of strict conformity)
3. always better than others, in some contrived or hairsplitting way - the constant demonstrations of greater ideological purity; prone to sophistry and hairsplitting and rules-lawyering to prove how others are actually wrong even (especially) when its shown otherwise
4. anklebiters who shy away from any actual confrontation - the elevation of the non-aggression principle to sacred dogma above all other principles is nothing more than the valorizing of cowardice in this context; they are aggressive with words and with condemnations, but invoke NAP the instant they provoke someone too far; similarly, they're vainglorious online tough-guys who call people names and call people out, but are obsequiously polite and shy away from any sort of actual confrontation in real life
5. secret kings who would rule in a just and fair world - "If we could just elect Libertarians..."
6. never responsible for their own failures or failings - "It's not our skeezy assholish personalities that keep Libertarians from being elected, it's the corporatist duopoly that unfairly suppresses third parties and brainwashes the sheep-like idiots who should be voting for us into stupidly voting against their own interests"
7. impervious to criticism and self-analysis - see above, and the following replies where this will be demonstrated to any reasonable observer's satisfaction.
Which is all very frustrating. I like a lot of libertarian ideas. But as noted, that the ideology attracts these types of personalities and has become identified with them works against it gaining any traction with normal people.
This thread itself demonstrates that they do so. Any discussion of how libertarians behave, how they alienate people, how they are their own worst enemies, how their personalities and attitudes limit their behavior, etc. they immediately turn into a discussion about what they believe, and how it makes them morally superior, how you just don't understand the principles, how you haven't read enough Rothbard or Spooner to have a meaningful opinion on the ideology, and other diversions and distractions away from the original subject. In short: "You guys are obsessive weirdos" is instantly and reflexively countered with "You're a statist!" followed by a ten-minute obsessively detailed rant on muh principlez!.
Libertarians are generally incapable of processing nonverbal social cues and direct verbal feedback about how they go about presenting their ideas, mistaking the judgments of behavior with judgments of the ideas.
Thus Diagnosis:Autism.
I know a handful of real libertarians personally (party members, not the "small-l libertarian" types a lot of disaffected small-government/pro-liberty Republicans label themselves as) and have dozens more as acquaintances. To a man (because none are women) they are like this. Ever been to a libertarian happy hour? Yes, such things exist, and they are miserable. It's a bunch of young, bitter, humorless, ideas-obsessed loser men trying to out-lecture each other on how hairsplittingly ideologically "purer" they are. If a woman walks into the room, they'll be shocked and amazed at this development and swarm this strange, exotic creature. Eventually one contextual-alpha from the pack will elbow past the others and perform the libertarian mating dance: he'll literally back her into a corner or up against the wall by invading her personal space, hectoring her on "muh principles" without her being able to escape, believing this will impress her into sleeping with him, wholly unaware that her averted gaze into the distance is not one of longing mixed with careful consideration of his deep philosophical pronouncements but rather that of someone in an intolerably painful situation fixating on a "comfort object"...in this case, the glowing green "EXIT" sign and its promise of blissful escape.
But while autism or aspergers (colloquially rather than clinically defined) might fit, I'm coming around to the belief that it's less that than that they're simply gammas. How does one define a gamma?
1. never wrong about anything
2. others are always wrong about everything
3. always better than others, in some contrived or hairsplitting way
4. anklebiters who shy away from any actual confrontation
5. secret kings who would rule in a just and fair world
6. never responsible for their own failures or failings
7. impervious to criticism and self-analysis
And how have we been describing the "spergy" behavior of libertarians?
1. never wrong about anything - their principles are pure and perfect, you just don't understand them..."go read some Rothbard and educate yourself, moron!"
2. others are always wrong about everything - anyone not 100% on board with their own individual belief-set is dismissed as a statist (which, ironically, rejects the individuality of their interlocutor in favor of strict conformity)
3. always better than others, in some contrived or hairsplitting way - the constant demonstrations of greater ideological purity; prone to sophistry and hairsplitting and rules-lawyering to prove how others are actually wrong even (especially) when its shown otherwise
4. anklebiters who shy away from any actual confrontation - the elevation of the non-aggression principle to sacred dogma above all other principles is nothing more than the valorizing of cowardice in this context; they are aggressive with words and with condemnations, but invoke NAP the instant they provoke someone too far; similarly, they're vainglorious online tough-guys who call people names and call people out, but are obsequiously polite and shy away from any sort of actual confrontation in real life
5. secret kings who would rule in a just and fair world - "If we could just elect Libertarians..."
6. never responsible for their own failures or failings - "It's not our skeezy assholish personalities that keep Libertarians from being elected, it's the corporatist duopoly that unfairly suppresses third parties and brainwashes the sheep-like idiots who should be voting for us into stupidly voting against their own interests"
7. impervious to criticism and self-analysis - see above, and the following replies where this will be demonstrated to any reasonable observer's satisfaction.
Which is all very frustrating. I like a lot of libertarian ideas. But as noted, that the ideology attracts these types of personalities and has become identified with them works against it gaining any traction with normal people.