My basic premise is that pure idealism does not exist, anywhere. A renowned French historian, Jacques Bainville, despite being a faithful Catholic, admitted as much when he wrote in every civil war there is ulterior motive.
For instance, you rarely see rich people embracing the cause of marxism, and when they do, they do so in ways by which they wouldn't suffer a very strong loss of status if the regime changes. This either implies advocating for milder forms of wealth redistribution (social democracy, liberal democracy), where they get to keep accumulating capital in exchange for greater, but ultimately insignificant taxes, or ensuring through political cunning and connections that their wealthy-man status becomes nomenklatura-status.
In the same way, but reversed, you rarely see poor people embracing ideologies that go against their direct interests. Even the hillbilly who votes Trump believes in his heart that lesser taxes and greater freedom will allow him better chances to thrive.
This brings me to my point: why is the libertarian community overwhelmingly male and bottom-tier in sexual attractiveness?
This comes down to sexuality. Libertarian men (95% of libertarians in the States are men) have come to view wealth as their only chance to have sex. Because they are ugly and untalented, making money is the only thing they can do to statusmaxx and worm their way into a woman's bed. When they see that the State wants to take half of what they earn to give it to women and poor men (many of whom are more physically attractive than them), this results in nerdrage and sperging out in the form of vocal libertarianism.
For instance, you rarely see rich people embracing the cause of marxism, and when they do, they do so in ways by which they wouldn't suffer a very strong loss of status if the regime changes. This either implies advocating for milder forms of wealth redistribution (social democracy, liberal democracy), where they get to keep accumulating capital in exchange for greater, but ultimately insignificant taxes, or ensuring through political cunning and connections that their wealthy-man status becomes nomenklatura-status.
In the same way, but reversed, you rarely see poor people embracing ideologies that go against their direct interests. Even the hillbilly who votes Trump believes in his heart that lesser taxes and greater freedom will allow him better chances to thrive.
This brings me to my point: why is the libertarian community overwhelmingly male and bottom-tier in sexual attractiveness?
This comes down to sexuality. Libertarian men (95% of libertarians in the States are men) have come to view wealth as their only chance to have sex. Because they are ugly and untalented, making money is the only thing they can do to statusmaxx and worm their way into a woman's bed. When they see that the State wants to take half of what they earn to give it to women and poor men (many of whom are more physically attractive than them), this results in nerdrage and sperging out in the form of vocal libertarianism.
