Whenever I hear a libertarian speak a strong visceral reaction occurs, which I believe would be a akin to the one that I would've probably found with the Nazi party, the Communists or a racist Southerner (i.e. listening to an insane ideologue talk).
It's no different to the reaction he probably feels with those who don't share his "grand world view no one understands but it's coming you sheeple" shtick.
It is not bigotry to point out obvious flaws in ridiculous and damaging ideologies - it's merely interesting to note the amount of controversy I appear to have drummed up.
What I find even more interesting is how many libertarians are often atheists, understand science/engineering and try to follow rational paths (this part is their downfall).
Problem is most of their "rational" foundations are just way off - i.e. the world is fair, people will act like you want them too, free markets bring all the good to the world, markets are efficient, private industry doesn't corrupt etc.
This is called cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance).
The world is messier than people think it is - and sociopathic platonic ideals should be vehemently defended against.
I think I see the problem: most libertarians don't believe those things.
Would it be accurate to describe you as believing the government can make the world fair, the government can make people act like you want them too, the government brings all the good to the world, government is efficient, government doesn't corrupt etc.?
I'm sorry - but what?
The groups I stated had core goals that promoted the rights of the strong over the weak (Nazis/Communists - indirectly/Racists/Libertarians - indirectly).
Seeing as I dislike said groups, their ideologies and utilise the veil of ignorance thought framework (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance) to protect the weak (which is what liberals do) - I can't possibly see how you can compare me to them.
Perhaps you're right and I'm perfectly willing to concede that.
Two questions.
How do you know that he wasn't being sarcastic?
Did I ever state that I wasn't subject to cognitive dissonance, irrationality or faulty logic?
How do I know he wasn't being sarcastic?
I don't know, but he has a good-enough track record here. The brother remark could possibly be sarcastic but his emphasis on actions, not the people, seemed sincere since it agreed with his initial post and he couldn't have foreseen your reply.
Did you ever state that you are not subject to cognitive dissonance, irrationality or faulty logic?
No, but you implied dissonance and illogic were rather obvious flaws of theirs and parts of the reason you find them revolting. Obviously you don't think you're perfect, but when you criticize someone about a specific thing to support your disliking them, I have to assume you think you don't do that thing as much unless you also dislike yourself.