> I'm not a libertarian exactly, but it always boggles my mind how the philosophy that at least tries to remain consistent with the ideal of not aggressing on t

> I'm not a libertarian exactly, but it always boggles my mind how the philosophy that at least tries to remain consistent with the ideal of not aggressing on the life, liberty, or property of others receives some of the most derisive comments. If you care to unboggled, it’s because a lot of libertarianism’s consistency is owed to it reducing a lot of real-world scenarios to very simple models where a specific freedom’s primacy is preordained by the choice of model. For whatever that means to the libertarian, it leaves a lot of room for other people to see it as reductive — ignoring the difficulty of reconciling conflicting freedoms and often dismissive of higher-order freedoms. It’s a philosophy that’s been championed by some very smart, very committed thinkers, but it’s also one that’s very easy to exercise naively and very inviting to criticize on those grounds.