[jfasi]

Libertarianism is a two-part ideology that holds that first, despite all the clear signs around us, the world is simple. In a simple world, what is the point of regulation, policy, or any other collective action, for that matter? Why not abolish everything?

On its face, this isn't an insane point of view. It's natural to look at the scope and complexity of government and as yourself "is all this really necessary?" While it'll never achieve mainstream status, some tinges of libertarianism contribute meaningfully as a counterweight to the tendency of government to grow beyond the point of diminishing returns to society.

The problem is, the ideology has a second, usually unspoken tenet: anyone who suffers brought it upon themselves. Hacker stole your bitcoins? Should have used a hardware wallet. Hospital bills driving you to bankruptcy? This is what you get for not saving for a rainy day. Poisoned by shoddily produced medicine? Hey, you get what you pay for.

It's an ideology of arrogance. Both intellectual arrogance, as its dunning-kruger afflicted adherents look over the vast and complex world and say "how hard could it possibly be?" to every challenge they perceive, and also of moral arrogance, as those same people cast their eyes over the depth of human suffering and inexplicably think "I've got mine, you all are on your own."

The reason why libertarians always lose is because anyone who isn't a billionaire would spend their entire existence looking over their shoulder in terror at the infinite ways life can screw you. And even then they would probably fail. Any reasonable person would gladly hand over the right to sell medicine they mixed in their own basement in exchange for knowing they won't be poisoned when they need help themselves.

[friend_and_foe]

I think libertarianism is an ideology that says that people have the right to take responsibility for their own lives and make their own decisions for themselves without getting anyone's permission. That's what I see anyway. I could be hyperbolic and say something like "it's nice that you think human beings are stupid and need a mommy to make all their decisions for them" or "guard rails can be used to lead cattle to slaughter" but I think you just genuinely believe the second point you made. The world might not be simple, but I think humans are perfectly capable of navigating the complexity on their own. That's really the crux of this disagreement. It's an ideology that says human beings are very capable and good when left to their own faculties the vast majority of the time and that it is ineffective to take away their right to self actualize in a failed attempt to try to prevent the instances when that is not the case.

Side note, dunning Kruger has been discredited as statistical bias, I only know because I see a post about it on this site almost once a week.