libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism

Wrong, right off the bat. That might describe anarchists, who believe in no government, but not libertarians, who believe in minimal government. Big diff.

PapayaSF:

Right. Also, even a libertarian doesn't have to believe in complete emancipation from societal constraints (although lots of libertarians do seem to think that way). Milton Friedman is fond of saying that society's most important unit is the family, not the individual.

I'm no libertarian and I wouldn't want to live in a completely libertarian state. But I think a libertarian society, like Hong Kong under British rule, could potentially work quite well. There's no way a Marxist society can.

I'm not sure the mirror-image analogy between Marxism and Libertarianism is accurate, or at least I disagree with it - since at least you're free to choose good things under Libertarianism, and that generally hasn't been the case in Authoritarian societies.

That may be a quibble, though, with a poor choice of analogy. I think what's trying to be said here is that any practical form of government has to be grounded in the non-subjective truth of human nature. Disagree all you want, but while many forms of government could work in an ideal world, the real world will grind those who fail to recognize their own nature to dust. Ashes to ashes, Darwinian style.

Yes, but Marxism imposes some good things.

"Libertarianism under British rule" Good one!

This article nails it, and I would add that it's interesting that college kids who fancy themselves as intellectuals are usually the communists and libertarians.

Neither works in the real world but try telling that to a 20-year-old commie/libertarian.

Marxism is pushed by a bunch of people who think they know it all and want to tell everyone exactly what to do. The most fervent supporters of libertarianism are a bunch of people who think they know it all and don't want you to tell them to do anything. The latter is less directly annoying, though the negative consequences of few or no rules for anyone would rear its head a lot quicker.

Libertarians grasp neither the need for a unifying culture nor the inevitability of coercion in the absence of same.

Seven:

But there are no old libertarians and plenty of old Marxists.

OJ:

Yeah, I know, it sounds silly...but I'm just talking about economic matters. John Stossel went there a few years ago (now under Chinese rule, of course, but they've mostly kept the old economy in place) for one of his shows. You fill out a single piece of paper and you can start a business the next day.

OJ:

Completely off-topic, here's something we'll be seeing a lot of this year. Why not prepare some of your usual pithy Yankee putdowns in advance? I mean, in preparation for the coming deluge... ;-)

Yesterday, I called libertarians delusional anarchists. It only makes sense because, as ghostcat so nicely put, they deny the "inevitability of coercion in the absence of the same."

It is the human desire to be loved that makes us want to believe that others will eventually become "just like us" and, therefore, be able to live peacefully in a libertarian (or any) society.

As a matter of fact, I think it is the source of most delusions.

Libertarianism is to wacky to merit detailed attack, but a single aspect betrays its insanity.

The Libertines neither understand nor support national defense. When all is said and done, defense is the principal justification for the existence of the state, and it is a very sound justification. The Libertines I have known have been cowards and slackers, the military being part of the "mysticism of muscle," don't you know.

Whatever freedom they value is sustained by missles, carriers, submarines, aircraft, and lots of men with rifles. These things don't exist without the things the Libertines hold in contempt. We did not mould the course of civilization for the last 107 years with voluntary associations. Libertarianism fails the test of history.