Core to libertarianism is the idea that consent is a sort of ritual, rather than a real concept with any depth. A contract formally stating agreement is all that’s required to authorize anything in their minds, regardless of the terms or whether it was coerced through unequal power or under the threat of violence or death. And once that formal ritual of agreement is made, they believe it’s irrevocable as well.
It’s at once cynically predatory and completely idealistic to an absolutely childish degree. There’s a reason libertarianism and fascism are right beside each other, differentiated only by whether the libertine treat lad has been scratched yet or not.
And once that formal ritual of agreement is made, they believe it’s irrevocable as well.
Which is hilarious because the businesses they fetishize engage in strategic defaults on debts all the time.
There’s a reason libertarianism and fascism are right beside each other, differentiated only by whether the libertine treat lad has been scratched yet or not.
It’s the same end goal, a society where democracy has been subjugated out of existence and the state has been subsumed to the private sector. The former just thinks it can be done without politics while the latter isn’t afraid to get its hands dirty.
This puts a lot of libertarian stuff I never understood into perspective. There’s that really terrible book The God of the Machine that used to be a libertarian Bible. I don’t remember much, but I recall an example of the first individualists were Christians who didn’t consent to Roman law. I never quite got how that was supposed to be libertarian, but now I get it.
It’s all magic words to them. “I do not consent” is a magic phrase that’s supposed to confer cosmic power onto them. If you don’t respect the words, then you’ve committed an act of aggression regardless of the context of the situation. This explains sovereign citizens too.
Core to libertarianism is the idea that consent is a sort of ritual, rather than a real concept with any depth. A contract formally stating agreement is all that’s required to authorize anything in their minds, regardless of the terms or whether it was coerced through unequal power or under the threat of violence or death. And once that formal ritual of agreement is made, they believe it’s irrevocable as well.
Core to libertarianism is the idea that consent is a sort of ritual, rather than a real concept with any depth. A contract formally stating agreement is all that’s required to authorize anything in their minds, regardless of the terms or whether it was coerced through unequal power or under the threat of violence or death. And once that formal ritual of agreement is made, they believe it’s irrevocable as well.
It’s at once cynically predatory and completely idealistic to an absolutely childish degree. There’s a reason libertarianism and fascism are right beside each other, differentiated only by whether the libertine treat lad has been scratched yet or not.
The constitution? It’s bound to our lives with cosmic forces beyond our understanding.
Which is hilarious because the businesses they fetishize engage in strategic defaults on debts all the time.
It’s the same end goal, a society where democracy has been subjugated out of existence and the state has been subsumed to the private sector. The former just thinks it can be done without politics while the latter isn’t afraid to get its hands dirty.
This puts a lot of libertarian stuff I never understood into perspective. There’s that really terrible book The God of the Machine that used to be a libertarian Bible. I don’t remember much, but I recall an example of the first individualists were Christians who didn’t consent to Roman law. I never quite got how that was supposed to be libertarian, but now I get it.
It’s all magic words to them. “I do not consent” is a magic phrase that’s supposed to confer cosmic power onto them. If you don’t respect the words, then you’ve committed an act of aggression regardless of the context of the situation. This explains sovereign citizens too.
Cargo cult social relations.