How prevalent is libertarianism among skeptics?

[EGarrett]

On the contrary most libertarians seem to reach conclusions smart people disagree with or make points that smart people have already incorporated the valuable bits from and moved on. I suspect you are falling into the age old trap of thinking people disagree because they don’t understand, when in fact they not only understand they understand the problems with the view as well.

No. When I say something, I mean it and it is demonstrable. Read my posts more closely and pay attention to them.

What tends to happen is that as people learn more about basic economics is they increasingly swing more towards libertarianism. This holds until they reach post graduate levels where increasing education generally results in a swing in the other direction. This seems largely the result of how economics is taught, you first start by learning the merits of free markets, free trade how and why they work. Once you are grounded in these you can begin to understand when and why they fail and what can be done about it.

Such as?

US libertarians seem to cap their understand at the first part of that and limit themselves to “free markets are good” and thereafter reject modern economics which is increasingly focused on how to make free markets work most efficiently because they mistakenly take this for “a command economy” and a rejection of free markets when they are nothing of the sort.

Do me a favor. Tell me, from your understanding, what exactly Milton Friedman is trying to explain to this student and what exactly it is that the student is misunderstanding about libertarianism.

 

[EGarrett]

Those are actual conversations I've had, the slavery question was a seperate occasion, the 'so you think corporations should be able to do whatever they want' and 'you don't care if old people starve in the street, do you?' were week before last.

Strawmen aren't the only fallacies I run into when discussing libertarianism, of course. Poisoning the well is pretty common, too.

He's not going to understand. For some reason or another, he somehow believes that it is true that you and other libertarians genuinely want corporate dictatorships where poor people starve, and no matter what you say he will view the person pointing that out as having made a "valid rebuttal" and not a ridiculous strawman.

I used to believe that if you just told them the truth about what you believed, they would stop saying those things. Now I know better, and I'm starting to come up with theories as to why they can't absorb it. Unfortunately, they aren't flattering ones.

 

[EGarrett]

This more seems like you missing the point then any flaw in their argument. Absent any controls these are legitimate consequences of many libertarian ideas. They point out the extreme because the libertarian they are discussing it with won’t come out and say what controls they support.

See, there we go. If you genuinely had paid attention to the basics of libertarian economic theory, you never would've said this. Hint: Libertarians do not believe in being "absent any controls," so referring to the consequences of "absent any controls" anarchy as though it's a consequence of libertarian theory is just another strawman. And if you genuinely wanted to know what controls they support you could've found it within 30 seconds through google if not just asked them.

 

[Beerina]

I find it astounding that "absent any controls", whatever the merits of that might be, is seen as the unholy god damndedest worstest zomygoddest horrible thing evah.

Compare it to, say, an overbearing government slowing the economic development a little bit? I'll take the former, as it saves more lives with faster economic development.



The big joke about all of this is there is no "parallel universe" in which to see the results of varying amounts of government intervention. So those snots with their nose in the air don't have a pit to piss in as far as the surety of their positions goes.

We do, however, have a direct correlation, the results of hundreds of century-long economic experiments involving billions of test subjects showing a magnificent correlation between economic advancement and a lack of government controls.

Of course, the intellectual savage immediately pipes up, "But look at places in Africa to see true anarchy, see? I win! Goddiddit!"

Sorry, no. Again, just because you need protection of rights, including property rights, does not imply the remaining 3.2 trillion in spending this year is somehow part and parcel to it.

 

[EGarrett]

In what way do you think libertarians are more logical? They may be more freed from social indoctrination, but not every non-libertarian is indoctrinated.

Not every non-libertarian is indoctrinated, and there may even be people who were indoctrinated into libertarianism as children and so believe it on a sub-rational level. However, I think that the incidence of people who became democrats or republicans due to childhood indoctrination from their parents is much higher than those who were indoctrinated into libertarianism, and thus libertarians tend more often to have reached their conclusions for logical reasons and thus can argue for their points of view more readily in clear and logical terms.

Shermer seems to be of the view that skepticism leads to libertarianism, but I don't actually see him making the case for libertarianism in any of his writings on the matter. If I've missed that, then please show me. I'd be curious.

I actually didn't really know about Shermer's libertarian-leanings until I read this thread. Of course, it does take some economic study to see what the libertarians are babbling about, so even many highly intelligent atheists may not ever come across it. So I wouldn't say it's some extremely high correlation, but I do believe that libertarians are more likely to be atheists, and vice versa, than the general population is.

This is just intuition though.

Actually, what I did is questioned that they occur together so often, as Loxton said. I found the evidence contradicting it.

Well pardon me, it does appear that the person quoted in the OP sees a high correlation. As said though, I think the ratio may not be a majority, but is simply higher than the normal population.

 

[lomiller]

No. When I say something, I mean it

I've no doubt you mean it, but that doesn't make it any less false.

See, there we go. If you genuinely had paid attention to the basics of libertarian economic theory, you never would've said this. Hint: Libertarians do not believe in being "absent any controls," so referring to the consequences of "absent any controls" anarchy as though it's a consequence of libertarian theory is just another strawman. And if you genuinely wanted to know what controls they support you could've found it within 30 seconds through google if not just asked them.

Ah on cue. I point out that libertarians refuse to talk about what controls they think are appropriate and that absent any there are serious problems with their ideology.

That's all it takes to get the libertarian de jour to insist he doesn't believe in a complete absence of controls but still refuses to tell us exactly which ones he supports. A prefect demonstration of my point.

 

[EGarrett]

Atheism does appear to be more common with education, that's true. But libertarianism is hardly equivalent to it, and you do yourself a disservice to compare them. Libertarianism tends to be an intellectual problem that can only, really, ever work under ideal conditions that history heavily suggests won't happen. Atheism is basically just a conclusion reached from a lack of any contra evidence.

I would say that libertarianism requires high intelligence and intellectual independence (since few people are raised libertarian) and also a decent knowledge of the free market. Thus, I would assume that while it may not be anywhere close a majority of highly-intelligent people that are libertarians, it is in all likelihood a much higher percentage than the general population. (like say 10% as compared to 5% of the general population or something like that)

For what it's worth, my, rather limited, experience with mensa members has not put the organization in a particularly positive light (I once considered joining). Arrogance is not becoming.

I made no statement of judgement about the organization and that's enough for a thread unto itself.

Really? Now, granted, most "libertarian" topics I've seen are really AnCap topics, but it's easier to nail the proponent down on AnCap than on libertarianism. Libs will agree that the government is necessary for certain things, but it's proven rather difficult to find out what they think really is necessary when you get into the real complexities of modern civilization.

Police, national defense and a court system.

I've seen long discussions with libertarians where they don't seem to even understand the tragedy of the commons or other issues that hinder true libertarianism.

The tragedy of the commons is an argument FOR private property. Please explain why you feel it is the opposite?

I can't honestly recall if I've ever heard an argument by a libertarian that wasn't nonsense.

Then you haven't paid enough attention. Google, youtube, and wikipedia can provide you with logical explanations and tens of hours of lectures, debates and Q&A's from people like Milton Friedman who speak in crystal clear fashion. If you want to discuss the topic, there's no excuse for building strawmen from half-explanations from the lowest common denominator of representatives of a position.

 

[EGarrett]

I've no doubt you mean it, but that doesn't make it any less false.

As I told you, read my posts. You haven't because I go to lengths to explain when people make strawman arguments. I've even done so in my posts today.

Ah on cue. I point out that libertarians refuse to talk about what controls they think are appropriate and that absent any there are serious problems with their ideology.

Oh really? So can I hold you to this statement? You believe this is NOT a strawmen and is accurate, that libertarians refuse to talk about what government controls they think are appropriate? Stake your ground.

 

[elbe]

I would say that libertarianism requires high intelligence and intellectual independence (since few people are raised libertarian) and also a decent knowledge of the free market. Thus, I would assume that while it may not be anywhere close a majority of highly-intelligent people that are libertarians, it is in all likelihood a much higher percentage than the general population. (like say 10% as compared to 5% of the general population or something like that)

I'm not thrilling on your "smart people agree with me" argument. Libertarianism doesn't "require" high intelligence, it really only requires some economic basics*. Economics is an incredibly complex system, what seems rational and logical to one intelligent person may seem the lesser choice to another. A lot of it depends on that persons perspectives.

I should also point out that highly intelligent people can be right idiots**, but I'd like to think that everyone would know that.

Police, national defense and a court system.

Vague, nice. But that's not a road I'm interested in going down.

The tragedy of the commons is an argument FOR private property. Please explain why you feel it is the opposite?

Really? Are you sure you know what it is?

Then you haven't paid enough attention. Google, youtube, and wikipedia can provide you with logical explanations and tens of hours of lectures, debates and Q&A's from people like Milton Friedman who speak in crystal clear fashion. If you want to discuss the topic, there's no excuse for building strawmen from half-explanations from the lowest common denominator of representatives of a position.

I'm sorry, I don't go looking for libertarian arguments. That's not a particularly productive way to spend my day.

* Note: this isn't really that impressive. For someone to be a christian it requires them to have at least some minimal knowledge about christianity. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone say they were a christian but have no knowledge about Jesus or god, and I think you'd be equally hard pressed to find someone claim to be a libertarian without at least some knowledge of economics.

** It occurred to me that "right idiots" can be read as something akin to 'stupid but correct' when I meant "right" as the adverb meaning "very, extremely, quite". To clarify: smart people can be stupid.

 

[lomiller]

As I told you, read my posts. You haven't because I go to lengths to explain when people make strawman arguments.

read'em they come off as an appeal to self authority with lots of arm waving thrown in.

Oh really? So can I hold you to this statement? You believe this is NOT a strawmen and is accurate, that libertarians refuse to talk about what government controls they think are appropriate? Stake your ground.

I'm not sure you understand what a stramwan is. I'm am saying flat out libertarians are hardly ever willing to give a detailed explanation of what government controls they think are appropriate even when they say they are in favor of them.

If you you don't like thus you should try explaining what you believe. I do not expect that you will. I expect that you will continue to wave your hands and try to *say* you support sensible regulation to provide cover for the fact you can't produce anything that can stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps you will surprise me and actually try to produce something but as I say I'm not expecting it.

 

[lomiller]

The tragedy of the commons is an argument FOR private property. Please explain why you feel it is the opposite?

Because it *is* the opposite. Garrett Hardin has specifically said ir specifically refers to unmanaged commons, indeed he published a later paper with name. "The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons".

 

[Dr. Fascism]

This nonsense about libertarianism being "refuted" or "attacked" by skepticism is silly, unless one is referring to certain claims of the "If X, then Y" nature, but then again that's true of any idea or political ideology. So whenever one of you says that, it's merely a repetition of your disagreement with the philosophy tailored to the audience of this board. Not impressed.

Right and wrong are not <I>real</I> things. Creations, spooks, figments of the imagination, sociocultural or individual creations. Behaviors. Preferences of behaviors. A preference for a certain type of behavior cannot be right or wrong.

Talk of rights being "created" by society is also nonsense. If a right is something that society lets you do, then one cannot claim that society has ever violated a person's "rights," and slaves during a time when slavery is legal are not having their rights violated because at the time they did not have rights. The moral intuition most people seem to have is that rights, or at least "how individuals should be treated." When Darat and others claim that rights are "created" by society, he is merely saying that society ("most people") either do or do not allow certain conduct, and also demand certain conduct in certain contexts. Saying anything else is just introducing metaphysical baggage in an area already implicitly full of it (ethics/metaethics).

Since all morality ultimately comes to arguments over ice cream flavors, discussion on these topics is impossible. Moral statements are statements of values, preferences. Yes, I am an emotivist.

In this way a libertarian (such as myself) does not really need to care about the empirical claims many libertarians make, most annoyingly ones from some philosophically nonsensical "Austrian school" which fancy economics a supposed "a priori" science.

One can ask, what authority does "society" (most people) have over the individual human being, myself or others? One may say "might makes right," and I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment behind it, except I would merely state, "might makes." And my morality, my feelings, are not particularly tickled when talking about the wants of the many crushing the needs of the few, or what have you. Libertarianism ultimately may begin at the realization that there is no great duty one has in carrying out his or her life; the government agent and the mafia goon are both equal as neither has any validity with their demands when you don't recognize them as being proper authorities. Why cater to the hungry demands of "most people" anymore than "a certain few?" Why care what the majority personally wants from you? One is not born into the world with inherent obligations towards others anymore than one is born into the world with such things as "original sin." All politics ever really is, is, some group, be it a majority or minority group, stating, "we want this, we demand this, this would be good for us, you don't need this, we'll take this," or, "we dislike your conduct, it is displeasing to us, we will force you not to do it or hurt you if you do." That is why walking outside naked is illegal even in most of the most "democratic" countries, despite the utter lack of damage it does to other beings--societies have become horrified at the sight of themselves and democratically decide to harm those that walk around through nature with their outer form unshielded in certain areas. It is a disagreement of taste that produces strong emotions, and strong emotions get people to act.

The notion that anyone has any inherent "authority" over another or one has an inherent notion to obey another individual, or produce certain conduct for another's benefit... I just find it laughable, really. It really is petty.

Skeptics like to appeal to authority, to society, to majority opinion in general, in moral matters. Those higher in intelligence and education tend to be left-leaning; I suppose it is some sort of cultural dynamic that shapes this. My experience with the left is is that many left-leaning individuals have a certain respect for authority and obedience that is also seen in the right but takes on a far more utilitarian flavor.

A good portion of the criticisms against libertarianism seem hold the world constant and think the world would not/could not adjust when that is not a settled fact (e.g., no FDA means no safety testing). Libertarians go to far in claiming that safety testing would be better due to competition or whatnot, but everyone else, too, goes too far in saying that the current paradigm is the best way. Or say, in regarding roads, that the system would be convoluted and too messy to bother with. (I wonder, in a magical hypothetical libertarian la-la-land, would people there, used to and thus content with their paradigm, would they make the same complaint about the bureaucracy of government?) when in reality a libertarian system, grown organically, may very well adopt cultural conventions on its own. Nobody has to tip in the United States; people do it anyways. Of course speculating on the nature of such a system is also a waste of time.

One thing that gets me is the skeptics, so concerned about protocol, and following the rules to a T, makes me wonder if they're not, as a group, all robots that has never been out in the real world. In the real world, the law is poked, prodded, misused, interpreted and re-interpreted; one cannot expect to stay safe from it if only they "play by the rules," because the rules, being merely words on paper that require interpretation, are dynamic and ever-changing even without new laws being passed. Sometimes the law is even ignored out of necessity, and how can one know which laws are and are not enforced? Some (many) certainly shouldn't be. And then, in the real world, protocol is never strictly adhered to because bored and tired humans are tasked with carrying them out. Safety regulations are skipped in restaurants, regulators skip over breaches in regulations because they don't want to file additional paperwork, grad students fudge a number or two in the data because they can't read the messy handwriting recorded on the sheet or don't want to restart the entire experiment, or start skimming over essays they need to grade due to strain, stress, and time constraints; the entire world works this way and it makes me wonder if skeptics have ever seen the dirtier, grittier, "real" parts of life. All the rules and regulations in the world, all the system-building, won't save you either, especially when it's almost never preventative and mostly just acts to punish those that disobey the will of the dominant group.

 

[Dr. Fascism]

I'm sure most people here are familiar with Daniel Loxton's piece Where Do We Go From Here?. Among other things, he worries that skepticism is becoming too closely associated with atheism, humanism and libertarianism. I can see why he worry about the first one (I don't find it very troublesome, but that's another dicsussion), the overwhelming majority of skeptics are atheists. As for humanism, the term seems rather vague to me, but again I see his point, as the CFI (a major skeptical organization) actively promotes humanism.

But libertarianism? Sure, there are some famous skeptics who are libertarians, like Michael Shermer, Penn Jillette and Robert Sheaffer. But it seems rather rare among "grassroots". Michael Shermer's libertarian posts on Skepticblog recieved mostly negative responses, and it seems to me that many (liberal) skeptics dislike libertarians even more than they dislike conservatives.

But I may be mistaken. How prevalent do you think libertarianism is among skeptics? Judging by Loxton's comparison, the majority (or at least about half) of skeptics would be libertarians.

The reason that libertarians are so hated by skeptics is because libertarians reject the idea of "government as protocol-setter" with an inherent, real authority. If you watch these forums closely on ethical matters you'll find constant appeals to the desires and wants of the great social consensus. Skeptics, like other academic circles, tend toward an implicit utilitarianism and libertarianism is often not in line with the attitudes most utilitarians hold.

In my experience, libertarians are also the most consistent regarding their moral premises, but that sometimes leads to conclusions that don't mesh well with the current paradigm of government and rule-making and at times seem insane, especially in today's world and its structure; liberals tend better towards people's moral intuitions but the logic is far loopier and arbitrary and often boils down to "obey, because that's the way things are." Conservatives are even less subtle about it. Just start a debate regarding the moral necessity of paying your taxes and you'll se it in action.

 

[lomiller]

The reason that libertarians are so hated by skeptics is because libertarians reject the idea of "government as protocol-setter" with an inherent, real authority. If you watch these forums closely on ethical matters you'll find constant appeals to the desires and wants of the great social consensus. Skeptics, like other academic circles, tend toward an implicit utilitarianism and libertarianism is often not in line with the attitudes most utilitarians hold.

Sceptics have a problem with libertarians because libertarians support all kinds of nutty ideas that their ideology says should work better despite all evidence saying it isn’t so. Most obvious is Libertarian opposition to the Fed and Favouring a gold standard.

There are, however a whole range of issues related to market failures like externalities, information asymmetry, monopolies, etc where Libertarians run afoul of mainstream science and economics drawing the attention of sceptics. Climate change is a good example here. Because the solution involves government action to deal with the externalities associated with CO2 emissions they are forced to either accept the role of government or reject mainstream science, and they nearly all choose to reject the mainstream science.

As I said above the basic reason sceptics end up challenging Libertarians is that they are idealists that when faced with conflicting information about how their ideals say the world should work and how the evidence says the world does work side with their ideals and reject the evidence.

 

[elbe]

I think it's fair to say that libertarianism works, it just produces scenarios that most people seem to feel aren't preferred. Example: it seems that most people would probably rather have a regulatory agency monitoring food/restaurant safety than letting the free market handle it and risk some party weighing profit over best practice safety.

I also think that libertarians tend to forget that much of what they want to do has been done before and, generally, rejected. We aren't living in a world where government regulation has always been the status quo, it has evolved to be what it is now. Is it perfect? Hardly, but to reset society back to a standard that had been rejected is just silly.

 

[EGarrett]

I'm not thrilling on your "smart people agree with me" argument. Libertarianism doesn't "require" high intelligence, it really only requires some economic basics*. Economics is an incredibly complex system, what seems rational and logical to one intelligent person may seem the lesser choice to another. A lot of it depends on that persons perspectives.

I used to believe exactly what you said here, that if people would just get some basic economic knowledge, they would understand the libertarian position if not agree with it. You can search up one of my older threads called "Can we stop pretending that sweatshops and overseas labor are bad?" to see me naively assuming that just asking the knowledgeable economists on the forum to give information would affect the point of view of anti-free market people.

Anyway, in the last few years since that thread and others, I've found this not to be the case. Even once basic economic principles are explained to the overwhelming majority of people, they fail to absorb it and continue their strawman arguing. My own economic-eureka went like this...in economics 101 in college...I raised my hand and asked the professor why we allow countries to rip us off by taking all our money for these products and not giving us any money for our products in return. He told me "That's mercantilism." I said "Oh." Then went home and looked it up and it was the last time I ever said that.

For the purposes of our hypotheses, I finished with about a 98% average for the semester and broke the curve for the other 80 or so students. The libertarian-extremists who used exaggerated phrases about the evil government didn't convince me when I was a know-nothing, but the instant someone gave me logical bases for the position, I instantly changed my thinking. I don't expect other people to understand it that quickly, but I hoped that they would have at least have an inkling of the value of economics when it's put clearly and calmly. They don't.

I should also point out that highly intelligent people can be right idiots**, but I'd like to think that everyone would know that.

I made no statement of value about the people in question and please recall that according to the informal poll 70% of them were still theists.

Vague, nice. But that's not a road I'm interested in going down.

I gave you the answer you claim that you've had difficulty getting, and I did so as quickly and clearly as I could for you. If you want more information, you can ask questions, you can google it, you can watch youtube videos where libertarians describe the proper role of government. But do not claim that the question is unanswered.

Really? Are you sure you know what it is?

As I said, please explain why you feel it is an argument against libertarianism? Although, after watching a single minute-long clip on the issue, I've extrapolated what I assume to be your entire argument and exactly why it is wrong and what you overlooked (hint: it involves my previous answer about the proper functions of government), but I'll wait until you confirm.

I'm sorry, I don't go looking for libertarian arguments. That's not a particularly productive way to spend my day.

QED.

* Note: this isn't really that impressive. For someone to be a christian it requires them to have at least some minimal knowledge about christianity.

Christianity is not a science.

 

[EGarrett]

read'em they come off as an appeal to self authority with lots of arm waving thrown in.

That's hilarious considering that in your very next paragraphs you accuse me of not doing something that I actually did in the posts directly previous to yours. It was sitting right there while you were typing...

I'm not sure you understand what a stramwan is. I'm am saying flat out libertarians are hardly ever willing to give a detailed explanation of what government controls they think are appropriate even when they say they are in favor of them.

Now you're waffling. You said, and I quote "libertarians refuse to talk about what controls they think are appropriate." Now are you backing off of that statement and admitting you said something untrue or are you going to stand by your own sloppy language?

If you you don't like thus you should try explaining what you believe. I do not expect that you will.

I already did, in a post directly previous to your own, immediately before you tried to claim that you read my posts. But it's okay, I intend to nail you down to an unequivocal statement with no wiggle room or waffling, then I'll handle that claim quickly and thoroughly.

 

[elbe]

I gave you the answer you claim that you've had difficulty getting, and I did so as quickly and clearly as I could for you. If you want more information, you can ask questions, you can google it, you can watch youtube videos where libertarians describe the proper role of government. But do not claim that the question is unanswered.

Actually, you didn't. My question was far more complex than your answer, hence why it's so hard to get it answered well.

As I said, please explain why you feel it is an argument against libertarianism? Although, after watching a single minute-long clip on the issue, I've extrapolated what I assume to be your entire argument and exactly why it is wrong and what you overlooked (hint: it involves my previous answer about the proper functions of government), but I'll wait until you confirm.

I shall quote the almighty wiki:

multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen

Property rights doesn't solve limited, shared resources. If you make a living off of fishing along a river you, personally, may not fish enough to make any significant impact on the fish population but enough people doing the same thing can, without trying to, wipe out the local fish population hurting their own long term well being.

Free market is highly unlikely to regulate long term conservation of shared resources, that's pretty much why we have government agencies to do that now. There was a problem that needed a solution. You may not like the solution, but it's better than not having one at all.

QED.

Arrogance. Nice.

Christianity is not a science.

Hmm. I don't seem to recall saying it was. It was a statement of fact that to have an opinion on a topic - any topic - requires you to actually be aware of that topic, not informed, just aware. For someone who seems, shall we say, proud of their intelligence, you might want to consider paying closer attention.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I think of "libertarian" as a policy-specific pole on the libertarian-authoritarian axis of government involvement.

Depending on the issue, there are a number of levels of government involvement one might favor:

• None at all (pure libertarian)
• All carrots (encouraging behavior)
• Carrots and sticks
• All sticks (discouraging behavior)
• Total involvement (pure authoritarian)

On the topic of murder, I'm happy to grant the government authoritarian enforcement over a zero tolerance policy.

On the topic of freedom of expression, I prefer near-zero government involvement.

Edit: It seems rather silly to me to build an ideology around one end of a graduated scale that, to my mind, is so variable depending on the issue at hand.

 

[EGarrett]

Actually, you didn't. My question was far more complex than your answer, hence why it's so hard to get it answered well.

Your question was generalized. If you want more specific answers, then ask more specific questions. You may actually find me agreeing with you (especially in regards to problems with An-Cap).

I shall quote the almighty wiki:

Property rights doesn't solve limited, shared resources. If you make a living off of fishing along a river you, personally, may not fish enough to make any significant impact on the fish population but enough people doing the same thing can, without trying to, wipe out the local fish population hurting their own long term well being.

If someone owned the river property or made a formal business of selling the fish, it would be in their self-interest to keep the fish population constant. Chickens and cows, for one example, are in no danger of going extinct.

Secondly, libertarians don't claim that business or people won't make stupid decisions on a small-scale. Individual people or smaller groups can make dumb decisions quite regularly. The problem is that the alternative to this is to have a small group of people make decisions for millions of others. Hopefully you can see why this would make things worse, not better.

But by all means, I WANT to understand the logical argument against this. If there's something wrong with what I've said, help me to see it. If it makes sense I will take it into account. As I've said, I've seen problems with An-Cap and even a legitimate problem with Ayn Rand's theories, in her own words, without building strawmen. These things just happen to be much more subtle then others seem to recognize.

Arrogance. Nice.

I'm not sure how you intended to disprove my statement that libertarianism requires learning and intellectual-adaptability or strength by telling me that you disagree with libertarianism and then admitting that you haven't read about it and don't care to. All you did was make yourself Exhibit A.

Hmm. I don't seem to recall saying it was. It was a statement of fact that to have an opinion on a topic - any topic - requires you to actually be aware of that topic, not informed, just aware.

You said that as though religion requiring knowledge of Christianity was an invalidating analogy to libertarianism requiring knowledge of economics. Knowledge of economics means being able to investigate a formal, logical system that has uses and applications, knowledge of Christianity means being able to sit in a pew and listen to a preacher. Those do not take equal amounts of education, mental discipline or intellectual ability. A belief that requires knowledge and ability to apply ideas from a formal field of study is a belief that takes more intellect than one that requires only to listen to someone else yell from a stage.