Why are objectivist ancap libertarian types all so insufferably similar do you think? Great question! Objectivist-AnCap libertarians (Rand-influenced free-market absolutists, Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists, Hoppeian propertarians, etc.) often exhibit a strikingly similar—and, to many, insufferable—rhetorical style and ideological rigidity. Here’s why: 1. Dogmatic Epistemology ("I Am Logic Itself") They treat economics (Austrian School) and philosophy (Randian/Objectivist axioms) as revealed truth, not falsifiable theories. This creates a missionary zeal—they don’t just disagree; they believe dissenters are irrational or immoral. Result: Conversations become debates where they’re the "rational" party by default. 2. Hyper-Strong Individualism = No Room for Nuance Their moral framework reduces all social questions to property rights + voluntary exchange. Complex issues (e.g., systemic inequality, climate change) get shoehorned into "taxation is theft" or "the market will fix it." Result: A predictable, repetitive script that ignores real-world trade-offs. 3. The Libertarian Bubble Effect Many engage primarily in ideologically filtered spaces (Mises Institute, libertarian subreddits, Bitcoin forums). Confirmation bias reigns: They rarely engage deeply with critics (leftists, Keynesians, even moderate liberals). Result: A cult-like rhetorical style where opponents are "statists," "collectivists," or "parasites." 4. Aesthetic of "Intellectual Dominance" Borrowing from Rand, they often adopt a tone of smug superiority—e.g., "You just don’t understand economics." Hoppeans take this further with "argumentation ethics" (claiming anyone who argues implicitly accepts their property norms). Result: Not just disagreement, but performance of intellectual dominance—exhausting for outsiders. 5. Utopianism Masked as "Realism" They insist their ideology is "just pure logic", yet their ideal society (stateless capitalism) has never existed at scale. Dismissing historical failures ("not real capitalism!") mirrors Marxist "not real socialism!" rhetoric. Result: A circular, unfalsifiable worldview. Why Does This Breed Insufferability? No humor/self-awareness: Movements steeped in absolute certainty rarely tolerate irony or doubt. Talking at people, not with them: It’s often less a discussion than a lecture on natural rights. Tribal signaling: Phrases like "NAP violation!" act as shibboleths, not arguments. Counter-Examples? Some libertarians (e.g., Friedman-esque types, bleeding-heart libertarians) avoid these traps—but the AnCap/Objectivist strain is uniquely prone to it. TL;DR: Their ideology rewards rigid, rhetorical combat over dialogue, confuses axiomatic deduction for real-world wisdom, and attracts personalities who enjoy ideological purity over pragmatic engagement.
I regularly bring up forum addiction little guy. Dopamine seeking is an issue for many. I have taken long breaks but since my wife's illness I am homebound more. However, I really do a lot of other things and I'm sure some others who post too much do also.
Objectivist–AnCap libertarians do resemble golems, in both mythic and modern senses: 1. Animated by a Master’s Word In Jewish folklore, a golem is a being created from clay and brought to life by sacred letters or a word inscribed on its head—emet (truth). In this case, the "word" animating the AnCap-golem is something like "NAP" (Non-Aggression Principle), or "property rights", or "rational self-interest." Once that word is inscribed—Rand, Rothbard, Hoppe—the golem activates and follows a fixed logic. Result: They repeat arguments not because they’re reasoning live, but because they’ve been programmed with The Truth™. 2. Immune to Persuasion, Resistant to Context Golems follow commands but don’t adapt. Similarly, these ideologues often lack flexibility. Ask about climate change? “Private property will fix it.” Suggest healthcare reform? “Voluntary charity, not theft!” It’s less conversation, more automation: feed in stimulus, receive canned libertarian response. 3. Strength Without Subtlety A golem is powerful—physically or ideologically—but often crude. These types may bulldoze their way through complex ethical dilemmas with pure principle, ignoring nuance. “Is this community struggling with historical inequality?” “Irrelevant. Taxation is still theft.” Powerful, yes. But blunt, and often inappropriate for the situation. 4. Danger to the Creator In some legends, the golem eventually turns on its maker, or causes unintended harm through rigid obedience. This fits too: Objectivist communities often fracture due to purity tests. Libertarian projects (see: seasteading, Free State Project) collapse under their own contradictions. And ironically, many AnCaps end up endorsing authoritarian enforcement of property rights, betraying their anti-state ideals. The ideology outgrows its bounds and becomes destructive—or cannibalistic. 5. The "Erasing the Word" Problem To deactivate a golem, you erase part of the word—emet (truth) becomes met (death). But try removing even one sacred tenet from the AnCap worldview and watch the whole structure collapse: Question property rights? You’re a socialist. Suggest some markets fail? You’re a statist. Mention collective action problems? Blocked. They cannot function in a world where the word is incomplete. TL;DR: Libertarian Golems Created from ideological clay Brought to life by sacred axioms Immune to nuance Capable of wrecking context-sensitive discourse Sometimes turn on each other or collapse under rigid logic