Egregoros

They aren't related on the economic axis but they are related in the realm of talmudic hair splitting, magical thinking and zero engagement with reality. You have to understand that the word, concept, and movement "libertarian" is an extremely new thing and is hinged on convicing you that it is inherently concerned with your liberty and freedom, when it in fact has no monopoly on such concepts. The core of it is outside what the popular perception of it is. Its understandable not knowing this at first but when you exist in their circles enough, you start to see the counter intuitive nature and inherent lie that libertarian ideology was created around. That was my experience anyway. The purpose of something is what it does, and libertarianisn doesn't liberate so its obviously something else entirely.

I was going to reply with a poast that was the size of an essay, and i know no one wants to read that shit. Once i have all my facts in good order, I'll reply with something again that isn't vibe based and is a lot more fact based but until then, hopefully very soon, i wanted to provide some points that would hopefully suffice for now so you *at least* understand why I'm so extremely opposed to lolbertism:

-I consider Ayn Rand, a jew from Russia, to be the main progenitor of modern, mainstream, RW libertarianism. The history there of is a lot more complicated in fact but we call Marx the progenitor of communism and not his 100s of inspirations and reference points, so for the sake of brevity, I'm focusing on Rand.
-a few things i grabbed from Wikipedia on the fly that some up her ideology:
"Rand called her philosophy 'Objectivism', describing its essence as 'the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute'" - this in and of itself is not so bad but it gets worse in my humble opinion
"Rand referred to egoism as "the virtue of selfishness" in her book of that title."
"She condemned ethical altruism as incompatible with the requirements of human life and happiness- she held that force and mind are opposites (my actual idealism loving ass is hitting my head aganist the wall just reading that)
-what she's saying in my view is that there is something inherently corrupt, miserable and counter productive abour caring for others and she not-so-implcity despuites the idea that the individual and the collective are inseparable.

This is already longer than i wanted it to be but my point being is that the economic stances are a microcosm of what i see as a philosophy compromised by unnatural and judiac thinking to keep things as brief as i can. Going deeper into this would require an ungodly amount of review of things that i never saved, and writing that would rival college papers but i wanted to say something rather than just leaving it empty like i had nothing to say. This probably doesn't statisfy or convince you and for that i apologize but like i said, i need to review things and get my facts in a row so i can actually lay out something that appears genuinely intelligent.

>I was going to reply with a poast that was the size of an essay, and i know no one wants to read that shit.
it's me, I am no one

>Ayn Rand
She is indeed very respected still, unfortunately, and she had some weird jewish sex obsession paired with a hatred for goyim. I won't debate this part. I started listening to fountainhead audiobook before becoming fully J-pilled and found it quite boring. I always liked I, pencil, the most dangerous superstition, some other stuff the Mises lib had for free.
>what she's saying in my view is that there is something inherently corrupt, miserable and counter productive abour caring for others and she not-so-implcity despuites the idea that the individual and the collective are inseparable.
Apropros inseparable, the Jewishness of many authors of it is also inseparable from the ideas, but I believe I said something about that above.
Here is what I would say on the individual and altruism and so forth, without challenging your point, which I agree with.
In today's day and age there is a very high preference towards "caring" for the sick and poor and so forth and I think this is counter-productive. I have always reasoned from right/wrong and true/false in this regard and tried very very hard to divorce this from the question of it being to my benefit. I don't like to see high-achieving people work only for the benefit of people who squander it all, and this is perhaps the small kernel of truth that Jews like Rand use as an in-road to spread their ideology about something different.
I think this works only because white people are "selfless" and have a concept of being a burden.

>progenitor of modern libertardianism
Only caveat to this is that people today (Mark Cuban excepted, who is jewish of course) often post copes about how actually libertarianism would help poor people more, uplift more squalid races of the world, how economic thinking would punish those who are racist (they have worse workers). So they try to be very goody-two-shoes liberal in their world view, in contrast to someone like Rand.

>my point being is that the economic stances are a microcosm of what i see as a philosophy compromised by unnatural and judiac thinking
It's interesting to see that this is where we diverge. I would probably have expected more of an attack on Rothbard, but that just goes to show I think the economics are the core.
Naturally, morality and economic preference are somewhat intertwined.

Very interesting post thank you for putting in the time and effort.

a rare sight these days!

I gotta say I haven't engaged with mainstream libertarians much these past years because, like I said, they are all liberals.
I still like the economics and parts of the philosophy. Not being subject to some random ass dickwad, as the hating-taxes-more-than-anything faction would say, has had some profound impact on my thinking because it sort of delegitimized government in principle and therefore also legitimized a lot of things I would have thought abhorrent before, i.e. use of force, and so on. Just for the simple fact that everyone is doing it. There is no one who isn't.
Changed my whole outlook on statecraft and so forth.
"Is it bad to force rich people to give you their property" I would say yes more so than before going through the pipeline, but out of economic concerns. I have become immune to conservatard "imagine if the roles were reversed" /"that power is one day going to be used against you" thinking

>it sort of delegitimized government in principle and therefore also legitimized a lot of things I would have thought abhorrent before

Thats a good point and i think thats why the libertarian phase is so pivotal. Its sort of a decoupling process that preps you for more distinctly and explicitly anti system thought. If you think about it, its the thought process equivalent of "hanging the capitalist with the rope he sold you". You're taking this ideology with a system approved stamp, taking what works and later using it aganist the system, a lot of times unintentionally. The fact this happens organically is a wonderful example of proper survival instincts at work in my view.