What does the phrase “clueless libertarian” mean?
Does it describe libertarians who are clueless about the world and the implications of their positions?
Or does it describe those who are actually smart and knowledgeable?
For some libertarians, this is a problem.
The term is used to describe those libertarians who don’t understand the implications and limits of libertarianism, yet are not too stupid to accept it as a truth.
To some libertarians this is the essence of their cause.
And for others, it is a sign of stupidity.
In the early 1980s, libertarianism as a political philosophy was already on the decline, and a new wave of libertarians was beginning to take hold.
Many of these libertarians, especially those who came from the left, took the liberty to be more open-minded, and they embraced the idea of self-liberation, which meant they were willing to take the high road in their positions.
Many libertarians were also eager to see their ideas incorporated into public policy.
One such person was Milton Friedman, who in the 1980s famously suggested that governments should not impose their will on anyone.
It was the start of a long and fruitful political career for Friedman, and it gave him the reputation for being an intelligent person.
But for most libertarians, the term was a catchall for those who weren’t stupid.
They thought that, when it came to public policy, they were not too dumb to accept that their ideas were not the most important.
When I first started writing about libertarians, I had little interest in writing about how libertarians were stupid.
I just wanted to hear the good ones say that libertarians were the best.
And yet I found myself thinking about this phenomenon in a way that made me think, “What is the difference between libertarians and idiots?”
In the late 1970s, the Rand Corporation published a study that argued that libertarians, unlike their fellow citizens, had the ability to make rational and moral decisions.
The study showed that libertarians tended to be better at decision-making than non-libertarians.
But that was not what was surprising.
Libertarians are smart.
As the study’s authors noted, “libertarian thinkers are capable of making rational and ethical decisions.
They have a greater ability than most people to make informed decisions about how to live their lives.”
As one of the study authors explained, “Libertarians, unlike most people, are aware of the limitations of their choices, to the point that they understand that there is a substantial difference between the degree to which they are willing to accept the consequences of their actions and the degree of freedom they would be willing to exercise in other circumstances.”
In other words, libertarians are not stupid.
The fact that libertarians have such high IQ scores shows that they are not so dumb that they don’t have some capacity to see that the consequences to their actions are unreasonable.
And so libertarians are the smartest people I know.
But they aren’t the smartest about what makes them smarter.
For some, the IQ score is an indicator of intelligence.
But, as I argued in my first book, Why Is There a Libertarian Revolution?, it is not.
The more I read, the more I came to realize that libertarians don’t necessarily have higher IQs.
Their scores are an indication of what they are capable in rational thought.
When libertarians are asked, “How did you become so intelligent?” the answer is often “I learned to use the logic of logic.”
When asked, what is the “rational mind” of libertarians, they answer “rationality.”
And that is where the term “rational” comes from.
Reason is a process that involves a process of reasoning.
For example, if I have a pile of bricks and am trying to put them together, I am doing a process called the Lego process.
There is a lot of complexity involved.
In order to make bricks, I first need to think about how they fit together.
And there are a lot more steps involved in the Lego construction than just putting the bricks together.
So, I need to make sure that the bricks fit together in a logical manner.
Then, I add up the bricks, add up their pieces, then add up all the pieces that are missing.
Now, the process of adding up the pieces is a complex process.
It involves a lot about what is called “theorems” or “explanations.”
Theorems are the logical steps that allow a process to proceed logically.
An example of an argument that is an example of a “theorem”: The theory of relativity says that there are two possible trajectories for a light beam: the path of light traveling in a straight line, and the path that takes it in an arc.
I want to know how to predict which one of these paths I will take, and how to find the best trajectory for my light beam.
So I ask my math teacher, “Well, the theory of relativistic gravity says that light can