You're Not the Boss of Me! Why Libertarianism Is a Childish Sham (p.s. please don't crucify me, I'm posting this so we can discuss it, not because I support it)

Libertarians believe themselves controversial and cool. They're desperate to package themselves as dangerous rebels, but in reality they are champions of conformity.

Attacking emotion.

Their irreverence and their opposition to “political correctness” is little more than a fashion accessory, disguising their subservience to—for all their protests against the “political elite”—the real elite.

Amazing how he is one paragraph in and still has not stated any valid points.

Ayn Rand is the rebel queen of their icy kingdom, villifying empathy and solidarity. Christopher Hitchens, in typical blunt force fashion, undressed Rand and her libertarian followers, exposing their obsequiousness toward the operational standards of a selfish society: “I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”

Still has not made a valid point, or a thesis argument. (also misspelled vilifying)

Libertarians believe they are real rebels, because they've politicized the protest of children who scream through tears, “You’re not the boss of me.”

It is sentences like these that if they were taken out completely would have no impact on the article at all, some people call it writer fluff.

The rejection of all rules and regulations, and the belief that everyone should have the ability to do whatever they want, is not rebellion or dissent. It is infantile naïveté.

Classic straw man fallacy in attempt to discredit a valid argument. I like the addition of naïveté to make his argument sound sophisticated.

As much as libertarians boast of having a “political movement” gaining in popularity, “you’re not the boss of me” does not even rise to the most elementary level of politics. Aristotle translated “politics” into meaning “the things concerning the polis,” referring to the city, or in other words, the community. Confucius connected politics with ethics, and his ethics are attached to communal service with a moral system based on empathy. A political program, like that from the right, that eliminates empathy, and denies the collective, is anti-political.

More straw man, and ad hominem. Also they attempt to define what is the best type of political opinion, making claims that Aristotle, and Confucius are the divine when it comes to politics.

Opposition to any conception of the public interest and common good, and the consistent rejection of any opportunity to organize communities in the interest of solidarity, is not only a vicious form of anti-politics, it is affirmation of America’s most dominant and harmful dogmas.

Yet you criticize people who want to organize as Libertarian. Good job. We are also for freedom of choice, so nice false cause fallacy.

 In America, selfishness, like blue jeans or a black dress, never goes out of style. It is the style. 

More BS fluff.

The founding fathers, for all the hagiographic praise and worship they receive as ritual in America, had no significant interest in freedom beyond their own social station, regardless of the poetry they put on paper.

So you are telling me you have no self-interests? Why not donate all your money to others? You are so modern and sophisticated.

Native Americans, women, black Americans, and anyone who did not own property could not vote, but “taxation without representation” was the rallying cry of the revolution. The founders reacted with righteous rage to an injustice to their class, but demonstrated no passion or prioritization of expanding their victory for liberty to anyone who did not look, think, or spend money like them.

Nice appeal to emotion. Yes things back then were fucked up, we used to burn people for thinking they were witches. Does that mean that this straw man has any modern merit?

Im going to stop here because this is literally giving me aids.

/r/Libertarian Thread Link - alternet.org