Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Many "libertarians" are simply cultural leftists with a penchant for anti-authority. This leads them to oppose being told what to do by regulators, teachers, and doctors, yet still hen peck each other into egalitarian compliance. In other words, they are, as Ayn Rand observed, "hippies of the right."
Ask what it means to be free, to be for liberty. They clamor, it means "to not be told what to do", to "not be forced."
That's not "to be" anything. That's a negative. They have no idea what they're for. Most of them just absorbed moral preferences from wherever they came from. Many are nihilists who just use politics to cope with lack of meaning.
To completely reject authority itself is to even reject one's own authority to judge for one's own life what is good and bad. This devolves into "all is good!" All except for that which says "something is better than something else", and THAT is bad! Take the logic deep enough into anti-authority and "non-aggression", and the agency of the individual completely disappears. Any one man could impact another for any action, "aggress" against him with his words, his choices, his bigotry, and he therefore must feel shame for his individualism.
Ergo, all must be permitted. Any individual resistance to this chaos cannot exist, because otherwise "liberty" is limited even by the "authority" of even the sentiment of guilt from a single man's utterance of "no."
Liberty in this sense is framed as escaping external inability, not as a goal of physical self-reliance and spiritual independence, of master morality, and thus conflict is inevitable when disagreement arises among the uniform flock of non-aggressors. The free man is a violent man.
English
