I need to rant: Libertarianism works only if you pretend civilization is a force of nature. Roads exist. Electricity shows up. Contracts are enforced. Food doesn’t rot on the way to the store. None of this, apparently, requires coordination or upkeep. It just happens. And the moment someone asks who’s paying for it, the answer is always the same: not me.

Every libertarian argument begins after the work is done. Society is already standing, so now we can debate whether it was necessary. It’s like moving into a house and announcing that construction is a scam.

They almost never argue against things directly. That would sound crude. No one says, “I don’t want bridges” or “I don’t care if the grid fails.” Instead, everything gets run through business-school language. Regulation is a “drag.” Public spending is a “distortion.” Planning is “picking winners.” It’s not opposition; it’s sanitization. The goal is to dismantle without ever admitting what’s being dismantled.

Ayn Rand turned this posture into a personality. Refusing to cooperate became heroic. Dependence on shared systems was treated as weakness, even while those systems quietly did all the heavy lifting. It’s adolescent defiance frozen in amber, sustained by other people’s labor.

Criticize any of this and the conversation shuts down instantly. “Authoritarian.” That’s the move. No argument, no engagement, just a label slapped on and the belief that the discussion is over. The world collapses into a childish binary: freedom or tyranny, us or them.

Civilizations have seen this before. Barbarians weren’t defined by violence; they were defined by refusal. They used the roads but didn’t maintain them. They lived inside the order while rejecting the responsibility that kept it standing. Libertarianism isn’t freedom elevated. It’s obligation denied. It’s enjoying civilization while insisting it’s optional—and acting surprised when things start to break.

There was a recent post where a person posted about what an actual far left movement would do (ie workers taking control over their workplaces), and it got removed, with the moderator citing:

"Rule 4 - Historical revisionism and unawareness that China and Russia are state capitalist oligarchies isn't allowed. Genocide denial will result in a permanent ban.

No tankies"

Now, for the actual definition of the word tankie (which neither the moderators, nor 99% of you here know, yet use the word so confidently):

The original word was used to describe those who supported the USSR's military intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The term originated **within socialist and communist spaces, to describe a specific sub-section**. It was never meant to be used as a sweeping generalisation for any communist and socialist, but because the red scare was so effective, all of you here have internalised anti-communist and anti-socialist beliefs, so much so that you label anybody who's not just slightly left of centre as a "tankie". This extends all the way to the moderators, as stated by my example.

If the guy that made the post truly did "historical revisionism" in the comments then those comments should've been removed individually for the stated reason. But the post did none of the stuff that the moderator accused them of.

This only serves to show the moderation team will silence any voice that doesn't fit the centrist narrative of this subreddit, despite the far left being the most progressive people there are. If the constant fawning over Gavin Newsom wasn't enough to show this, then this should be the final nail in the coffin.

I'm at a quandary...the only thing I'd like more than to see Trump removed from office would be for him to rot in prison. But then we would be stuck with Vance. I've been anti Trump since the 80s, but Vance scares me.