Humans love victims and underdogs, its how the Left was able to exploit people for so long into feelings bad for all the non-white groups of the world despite them openly biting the hands that feed them and destroying everything around them.
Crying antisemitism is an age old tactic that has worked almost perfectly for the last century. So they keep yelling it hoping eventually their victim status will kick in and people will defend rush to their defense.
It's just an extension of the Non Aggression Principle. Under the NAP the first person to claim injury is the moral actor, therefore the winning strategy is to claim injury early and often. Libertarianism is just a subset of Leftism.
Not that I don’t enjoy dunking on libertarianism, but I’m not sure how that philosophy is uniquely vulnerable to this, or at least, would be uniquely vulnerable for the reason you described. Claiming anything that was recognized as an actionable injury would still have a similar—perhaps even more potent—effect in a harshly authoritarian setting.
Authoritarian don't need the NAP to justify their actions, whereas Libertarians (at least a few years ago) were always harping on the NAP. It's just that the NAP is the foundation of victimhood culture, and people just don't seem to get that.
Think about how claims of anti-semitism would work under a "might makes right" system: The universal answer would be "so what?"
Humans love victims and underdogs, its how the Left was able to exploit people for so long into feelings bad for all the non-white groups of the world despite them openly biting the hands that feed them and destroying everything around them.
Crying antisemitism is an age old tactic that has worked almost perfectly for the last century. So they keep yelling it hoping eventually their victim status will kick in and people will defend rush to their defense.
It’s also extremely feminine. Israel maneuvering America into war with Iran is classic “let’s you and him fight”.
It says something about the Anglo West that we fall for such feminine tactics over and over again.
It's just an extension of the Non Aggression Principle. Under the NAP the first person to claim injury is the moral actor, therefore the winning strategy is to claim injury early and often. Libertarianism is just a subset of Leftism.
Not that I don’t enjoy dunking on libertarianism, but I’m not sure how that philosophy is uniquely vulnerable to this, or at least, would be uniquely vulnerable for the reason you described. Claiming anything that was recognized as an actionable injury would still have a similar—perhaps even more potent—effect in a harshly authoritarian setting.
Authoritarian don't need the NAP to justify their actions, whereas Libertarians (at least a few years ago) were always harping on the NAP. It's just that the NAP is the foundation of victimhood culture, and people just don't seem to get that.
Think about how claims of anti-semitism would work under a "might makes right" system: The universal answer would be "so what?"
Even or especially here.