[defen]

The problem with libertarianism is that it starts with a tiny set of axioms, and then attempts to derive how the world should be. Any deviations from that are then taken as evidence that the world is wrong, unjust, etc. In reality, humans are hierarchical social creatures with complex dynamics, and you kind of have to play by the rules that other people set for you. In this case, a group of people broke the rules and some other people think they should be punished, and I think most of the people here have no problem with that.

[dreamdu5t]

> In this case, a group of people broke the rules and some other people think they should be punished, and I think most of the people here have no problem with that.

The percentage of people who agree with what I've asserted here has no bearing on the validity of my arguments. And attacking my argument for being libertarian is argumentum ad hominem. Shooting the messenger does not address the message.

[nemo]

"attacking my argument for being libertarian is argumentum ad hominem"

No. Saying that the framework you're basing an argument on is flawed isn't dismissing the argument because of a personal flaw of the person asserting something. It's saying that the core axioms/assumptions are flawed.

Maybe you over-identify with that ideology and are taking criticisms of the ideology personally since it feels personal, but it's not at all about you, it's about the ideas you're espousing.

[dreamdu5t]

> it's about the ideas you're espousing.

And you've espoused none. You may disagree with said axioms but you haven't pointed out what those are or why you disagree with them.

"You're wrong" isn't an argument. "You're wrong because what you're saying sounds like libertarianism" isn't an argument either.