(Another) critique of libertarianism or

The Mentality of Born-Again Ideologues

A critique of the mentality of "born again" zealots, particularly rightlibs or libertarians.

Whether religious or political, these are always people who have not long come into contact with the beliefs they pretend to espouse but have had little time to consider if they might be wrong or any other point of view.

 

They've not long read a book about the Bible or Marx or Rand or who/whatever (never the source material, at least in the case of the Bible) liked what they read, took it to heart, had an epiphany and told themselves "Oh my God this is so right how could I not have seen that things are this way". This then leads to "why don't other people see things this way?" which then leads to "how can they have the gall to even think differently?" and a total refusal to consider for a second that other people may be right.
 

It's difficult to take libertarians seriously when they all seem to believe the same thing, or at least those who subscribe to a version of capitalism that both never existed and is more in line with the thinking of mutualist/market anarchists like Proudhon; specifically one that envisages a petit-bourgeois society of small tradesmen, small hold farmers and shop keepers, sort of like Napoleon's description of the English.

If they subscribed to such a reordering of capitalism I could take them more seriously but this would in reality involve such a large re-allocation of land and capital that they would consider to be violence-except people aren't immortal; libertarians could (and it would be consistent) support the abolishment of inheritance as a way of raising revenue without taxing wealth or productivity and as a way of heading towards a mutualist small holder version of society by allocating land and wealth as it becomes available. Similarly, the idea that any kind of welfare state is both immoral and represents only a form of violence is both misguided and only explained by the espousal of so-called free market capitalism.

Which isn't an explanation.

The Elizabethan poor laws established the welfare state, this didn't lead to socialism or make people lazy. Besides, if libertarians were right than the perfect society would have been Victorian England.
Or pick any third world nation.

Also, why is it immoral to receive money to live off if you don't work? It's not theft. To allow people to starve is a form of violence by society, plus: why should people be forced to work in the first place? If one only has the option of work or starvation one is really no better than a slave.

 

There's nothing virtuous about being rich and out of work just as there is nothing virtuous about being poor and out of work or being poor and in work (most poor people do in fact work as do most people receiving some form of welfare in advanced countries), so should Mr or Miss Trust Fund be sent to a re-education camp to teach them the virtues of hard work?

Why should the poor remain in both poverty and endless drudgery? Or are the rich automatically morally (and hey why not genetically?) superior to the rest of us? The attitude libertarians have towards most of Humanity borders on racism and like racism it is totally disproved.