There are probably Republican founders who’d feel the same way.

FWIW, I believe it would be possible to build a workable libertarian society that wasn’t particularly a plutocracy. It would require a legal system and a method to update the laws, etc. It might have various problems we don’t have, all of which are probably solvable. For example, rather than apply eminent domain to build railroads and such, they might have lots of low-flying dirigibles that are dragged by cables from a series of discrete towers. Something along those lines might work as well as railroads or even better.

But the central thing that makes it fail, is that people aren’t raised to live in a libertarian society. People are raised with a family structure that prepares them to live in a monearchy. Every libertarian I’ve known well, grew up in a family where the father was overbearing.

If I ever come up with a wonderful idea to improve the world by encouraging people to practice simple decency, and then somebody tries to take over the world and gets billions of people killed in the name of my idea, I am going to be pretty upset. At least if I survive to hear about it.

Sounds like Karl Marx to me. Do you have somebody else in mind?

Libertarians are shills. Their leading “thinkers” (if such a word can be applied to a rabid ideology) are paid by big companies to defend those companies’ interests. The unpaid libertarians all cheer on the deceptions and thuggery of their paid counterparts, and accept everything they are told unthinkingly. The paid shills routinely accuse scientists of making up science in order to get money from the government, but their cheer squad get very upset when the same accusation is made of them. In the process of engaging in this dirty little circle jerk, libertarians have attempted to drag the reputation of whole branches of science and public health through the mud.

This is all well known, except apparently to libertarians and their fellow travellers, who seem to think that money only corrupts when it is given by governments to scientists.

Imitation libertarians? Libertarian poseurs?

It’s usually embarrassing when philosophies etc are called to atone for the crimes of their proponents.

If I ever come up with a wonderful idea to improve the world by encouraging people to practice simple decency, and then somebody tries to take over the world and gets billions of people killed in the name of my idea, I am going to be pretty upset. At least if I survive to hear about it.

Of course. But so is arguing that one can determine the relative affluence of some ideological group based on a price of some particular book. Hey, Bastiat is free on the intranets. In the true language of liberte no less:
http://bastiat.org/fr/les_deux_haches.html

All them papers you link to are not. Does that mean anything? No.

1. There is a movement in the US which is commonly called “libertarian”. This may be a perversion of the original use of the term, but it’s in common use and makes a handy shortcut. So to all the objectivists, Randians, anarchists or whatever – sorry, but you get painted with the same brush.

2. This movement is funded by a small set of extremely wealthy individuals. I believe that Charles Koch really holds these philosophical views, but many others in his circle are buying intellectual cover for what is essentially an autocratic view of the world.

3. Those who get their funding from this group have much more visibility than they would if they weren’t funded by deep pockets. See how many people pay attention to the work of Henry George as a comparison.

4. Those who earn their livelihood from the largess of an ideological backer are not independent agents. If they stray from the ideological positions of their backers they quickly find themselves out the door and being attacked by their former colleagues. I’ll skip citing the host of recent examples.

5. There are those who then follow the lead of the intellectuals. They think (being libertarians) that they are independent spirits and take offense when I say they are authoritarian followers. But one only has to look at their response when one of their idols is attacked. They need to “believe”. This is true of all ideologues, left, right and libertarian. It’s a personality trait.

So to summarize with an economic argument:

1. The super wealthy are acting rationally they are trying to preserve their wealth and privileged position by spending some of their money on activities towards this end.

2. The pundits are acting rationally, they are getting paid for doing the bidding of their sponsors. They may think they are independent, but without the millions used to set up the institutions where they work they would most likely be doing something else. Libertarianism is a fringe discipline which doesn’t exist without financial support from a self-interested group.

3. The followers are not acting rationally (in the economic sense). They are not getting paid for being a cheering section, they are not members of the super wealthy class and their interests are diametrically opposed to these people. The chances of becoming a billionaire are essentially zero and the money that the wealthy keep could be used to benefit society more generally. Even Ayn Rand stated that people should look out for their own self interest. The fan club doesn’t even follow the advice of one of their key philosophers.

And I don’t know what the Labor Theory of Value has to do with anything.

If we were arguing in person I’d call you “freaking stupid” and then maybe, if you’re purty, offer to buy you a beer. Ummm… . You know, you’re the one who brought up this “dick” thing, I just played along. And now you’ve brought up another serious charge – wait… you also wrote that first paragraph which doesn’t make any, um, fu.., no, freakin’, sense whatsoever – and maybe I should address it. Hmm, yawn, No. Anyway. I believe what you called me was Dweeb.

Sure. Why not. Guilty as charged. I’m a dweeb. You feel better now sparky? Can I admire your non-economist real-life biceps sometime?

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2744648

Charming as ever. But you know notsneaky, I have this sneaking suspicion that if we were arguing in person you would never have told me I was “freaking stupid”. Or said I deserved to witness the spectacle of you being a dick (which is an insult to me how, precisely?). I think this style of argument must be a libertarian stock in trade. Comes from being dweeby economists in real life, I have no doubt.