Are libertarians Aspies or extreme NTs?

Post Reply New Topic

I often hear that libertarianism and Asperger's are correlated with each other, probably due to the stereotypes we are systemizers and low on empathy.

I find that libertarians are probably the political persuasion I get along with the least. Even Christian conservatives at least sometimes have a concept of charity, and not all of them are hateful and are probably only homophobic, sexist etc because of inertia and not questioning their social landscape's values enough.

If anything right wing libertarians seem like extreme NTs. They seem to hate people with disabilities that make them unable to financially sustain themselves through employment, and they tend to be reactionary and lacking in imagination. People with autism on the other hand tend to be dreamers and idealists as opposed to cynics or pragmatists.

Something like three quarters of Aspies from most informal polls I've seen are liberals or left wingers, while probably about two thirds of NTs are conservatives or right wingers.

While I could see some people on the spectrum who genuinely believe that capitalism leads to peace and prosperity supporting right wing economics, most libertarians seem like hypocrites who just want to keep their whole paycheck without thinking of the consequences of a society that doesn't collectively pool any of its wealth and hates people who are unable to adapt and thrive in the so called "real world".

I call them hypocrites because their entire philosophy is based on property rights yet most right wing libertarians oppose IP law. I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways! If you believe in the rule of law and that property rights trump all other values you should support Internet censorship to protect intellectual property and fight piracy.

All libertarians aren't like that. What you're describing are swallow thinking, Randian dolts.

True, left wing libertarians like Chomsky are not like that. The vast majority of the closet conservatives/social Darwinists who call themselves libertarians are though. Right wing politics by nature are authoritarian since they favor power structures. The corporate structure libertarians advocate is just as authoritarian as Stalinist communism and far moreso than social democracy.

There is no one single libertarian ideology, there is no dogma, there is no manifesto or little red book. People on the spectrum are just as diverse in their beliefs as anyone else, the unbridled individualism and opposition to traditional authority and hierarchy appeal to some. Please don't try to pigeon-hole or strawman anyone.

I think you're making a false equivalence between a criticism of a political ideology versus something people are born with, such as their race or sex.

Of course libertarians and right wingers are not going to exactly agree on all the same points, but by definition their viewpoints are going to have a lot of common ground. I don't think right wing viewpoints are toxic and harmful because I'm irrationally prejudice against people who happen to hold those beliefs. I find the beliefs themselves to be harmful.

I know a LOT of liberal NTs. I know a LOT of conservative NTs.
I haven't talked politics with too many people on the spectrum, except for where it comes up here on WP and I see a broad range of ideologies here.
I don't think right-wing/left-wing is based on neurology, though it is possible that the *extremes* are associated with people who tend to be extreme.

Where is this false equivalence? Show me.

There is no right or left, that's a false dichotomy defined by it's own terms which have been warped and twisted beyond all recognition. It's relative, to yourself and how you define it. I've been called pretty much everything so I think it is very very stupid. I don't care much about labels or ideology.

Libertarians are first and foremost individualists, the only thing they really agree on is that they all disagree with each other which is the history of the Libertarian Party in the United States in a nutshell.You have a stereotyped view, I suggest stop listening to Rachel Maddow read 'Atlas Shrugged' around the camp fire and actually talk to people with these views and maybe even debate. I think you'd be surprised that most aren't anywhere near the Gordon Gekko character you have night terrors about.

There sure are a lot of assumptions in the original post. I think of the label "right wing libertarian" as an oxymoron.

I cannot speak for all the other people pigeonholed in those sweeping generalities, but I can speak for me. I look at systems, institutions, big picture. Our lives are the sum of millions of decisions occurring every second. Likewise, our society is millions times millions of decisions occurring all the time.

When it comes to decision time, would you rather help someone today alone or for all of their tomorrows?

I do not disagree with charity, but I believe it becomes meaningless when it is state imposed. Once we make it an abstraction, once we go from physically helping our neighbors to moving digits around in an EBT computer system, we take away all the power of charity. It goes from the best face of humanity to just another faceless institution. I know the desire is to take away the stigma of being a charity case, but it also takes away something from the giver, too.

To me, libertarianism is about the importance of the individual. I value both myself, and other people, as individuals, far more than a state imposed institution ever could. I don't object to helping other people. I object to removing choice from the equation. Charity as an automatic part of a bureaucracy saves a small fraction of the whole from pauperism and indignity. The irony is it was instituted as a more efficient way to deliver relief to those in need. The unintended consequence of enshrining it into law is that it mainlines apathy into society. Unlike a certain political philosopher, I would say that the welfare state is the opiate of the masses. If you want to help someone, help someone. If you don't, don't. The government need not be involved.

Anyway, when it comes to charity and empathy, I have a different theory or perspective. I think there is a difference between long term focus and short term focus in people in general. Most people know the saying give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. I say sometimes it takes difficult choices today to make tomorrow better. My mom used to call that "tough love."

I am a full on libertarian. I have been diagnosed with high functioning autism. Not sure how that jives with your theory.

A good argument for handing over charity functions to the state is that it helps prevent private charities from using it as an excuse to proselytize, have church attendance as a condition of aid, and things like that.

One of the admirable things about Islam is its disposition towards charity. Though, I'd be extremely concerned if non Muslim's had to resort to Muslim charities were those services no longer provided by the government.

Last edited by Nebogipfel on 13 Jan 2016, 5:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I'm a social libertarian, and I don't lack empathy.

Social libertarians emphasizses non-interference in people's private life unless it is harming someone else's rights.

Economically I'm a trade liberal and Competitonist. I also don't have a problem with economic migration.

As other have stated Randian Objectivism or Survivalist ideas are not the beginning and end Libertarian.

"Libertarian" in US has before a byword for Republicans who are not socially conservative. However when you scratch under the surface, they support protectionism when it suit them. These people aren't really Libertarian, they wan to fit in with the Tea Party folk.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Left and right is on a different axis, which can intercept libertarian at various points.

I suggest learning more about it.

To me, modern libertarian thought often strikes me as a shallow and vulgar form of classical liberalism, often incorporating some useful economic concepts but showing little understanding of the underlying scientific assumptions necessary to make theoretical concepts work in the real world.

I've noticed quite a few Libertarians who seem to completely ignore (or wishfully deny) the documented existence of market failure (particularly information asymmetry and externalities), especially when it comes to environmental problems and health care, and who tend to rely on magical "Oh, the market will fix this!" hand-waving explanations.

Other Libertarians also seem to be excessively influenced by theories that are either completely decoupled from or marginal in scientific research, like Objectivism or the near-defunct Austrian School of economics.

Or more bluntly put:
Some Libertarians apparently bought an entry-level book on economics and then got tired after reading the first 20 pages.

Last edited by GGPViper on 13 Jan 2016, 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Exactly. Charity is great, but there's still a power differential between the recipient and the giver that doesn't exist when the government distributes money. Plus I don't think charity will ever fill the gap public welfare does, if it did we'd never have created a welfare system in the first place.

I have to agree, I don't subscribe to self-righting economic theories, this is as crazy as Gaia earth theory.

Economically I'm more Competitonist and trade liberal in the classical sense.

Capitalism isn't remarkable, it isn't even a complete economic approach. There are many forms and it no guarantee of competition.

Economic diversity and real competition in more sectors, simply offer more insulation. No system is immune to economic failure and down turn.

Yes. We developed the social safety net of the new deal because private charity was inadequate and oftentimes unfair.

Also, let's get something straight here... The object is to meet basic human needs, not make givers feel good about themselves. That's just narcissistic horses**t. Sorry, but I had to say it.

How ableist to you suggesting that aspies or those with disabilities can't financially sustain themselves. I actually feel discriminated against.

Also, let's be more careful about how we present our portrayal of NTs to outsiders.

Are you saying the government doesn't have power over people?

Holy cow we are in trouble if there are many more people that share that ignorance.

The welfare system was created because bureaucrats thought they could offer charity more effectively. It was done with good intentions, but ended up doing more harm than good. Typical short-term thinking myopia