You have a very distorted and unfair interpretation of libertarianism, but did I ever expect anything less from you?
I have realized that the Libertarian/Randian understanding of rights is quite asymmetric. Selfishness is a virtue-provided that you are the one acting in a selfish manner. Others cannot act in a purely selfish, egoistic manner; for by doing so, they would necessarily be screwing everyone else over.
What exactly is your definition of selfishness? Here is a hypothetical: Am I “screwing over” the neighborhood drunk by not giving him beer money every time he asks for it?
Keeping what is rightfully yours is reasonable. It is not right or moral to seek self gain by willingly and intentionally taking something from someone else; Libertarianism rejects all forms of theft and places a high value on individual property.
If everyone acted purely out of selfish, self-interested calculation, then what's to stop any individual from stealing or destroying another's property? Nothing. So much for "absolute" property rights.
Again, rational selfishness (IE: hoarding saved money in a jar under your bed) is not the same as stabbing my grandma and stealing her purse. Libertarians believe in a state and law enforcement. Quit intentionally confusing Libertarianism with anarchism.
This is why the Libertarian doctrines of Ayn Rand, Hayek, etc. are self-refuting and self-contradictory. The standard of egoism must ONLY apply to you, and not anybody else in society.
Otherwise, you have purely anti-social behavior among individuals in society. Therefore, this is not a viable ideology.
Nice “expo” on Libertarianism. Besides the fact that your arguments are against a totally separate ideology that has various factions ranging from anarcho-capitalism to anarcho-primitivism and everything in between. Therefore, your arguments are invalid and your points are not viable in any serious argument on the subject.
