I quit reading it, because stuff like what you've excerpted comes up frequently. I've never found the cases to be difficult to refute at all and I'm not that interested in refuting people who argue disingenuously.
Smearing people who categorically reject initiating aggression for political purposes as "fascistic" is as radical of a misunderstanding of both libertarianism and fascism as one could make.
If someone misunderstands what libertarianism is that badly, then I agree with @kepford that whatever they call themselves they are not a libertarian.
this territory is moderated
I stopped reading it about three times. I didn't mention the lack of definition of racism but that's a red flag as well. If I were not familiar with fascism from his writing I'd assume fascisms key attributes would all be related to race and sex. When your read the current popular definition of fascism it is far away from libertarian ideas he counters in this post. The use of the term is the biggest mistake in this post
It is fair to say the libertarian ideas do not fix human hate. That they are not an answer for the ills of discrimination. I haven't heard an argument that they are. What I have heard is that decentralized society would lead to more diversity and less violence.
reply
Stupid mobile autocomplete. Racism should have been fascism.
reply
I have seen arguments that libertarian societies might alleviate racial tensions, to a degree, but we aren't generally utopian and wouldn't argue that ugly human traits will just disappear.
reply
The most annoying thing to me is when you focus on the social aspects of fascism you really miss the deeper issues. Racism, sexism, slavery, and many other ills exist in all political systems because they are moral, not political.
reply
"Fascism" = "Bad thing"
reply