This is just a transposing of your libertarian interpretation onto the parts of what I have written that are clearly hostile to your worldview. But your attempt at a correction of sorts does not withstand this reply.

Liberalism does not bode a Victimocracy

That's why you stop at the political level.

You unwittingly admit that Liberalism is the original victimocratic ideology. The rulers-subjects distinction simply precurses the myriad oppressor-oppressed distinctions that abound in late-modernity. Once the rulers are overthrown, the logic of the political value of freedom demands that new oppressors are identified and overthrown, so that freedom ever increases throughout the world. Hence the cis-trans distinction, the man-woman distinction, &c. are simply the original Liberal battle being fought all over again, but between different categories. New sides are merely fighting old battles. Feminists are Liberals who see men as the new kings to be overthrown, homosexualists are Liberals who see heteronormativity as the new monarchy to be overthrown, and so forth. 'Ur'-Liberalism, having stopped at political power, did not realize well enough the freedom of these persons, and so for those who value freedom and/or equality, these battles must be necessarily fought and won. Since I do not value these ideals, whose appeal and benefits are strongest to the degenerate, my view on such persons is that they should be crushed. A Liberal, however, cannot embrace this position without him becoming a rank hypocrite. Freedom and equality for me, but not for thee! You are forced to tolerate such persons, since anything else violates Liberalism itself (harm principle, NAP, etc.), and so the solution requires totally breaking with Liberalism.

What you want to do is bound Liberalism such that its logic does not unfold beyond the ruler-subjects distinction: Liberalism stops at political equality. This is nonsense, since there is no way that freedom can reliably be bounded. All attempts to do so—suffrage limited to White property-land owning men, suffrage limited to White men, suffrage limited to men, marriage limited to heterosexuals—have completely and utterly failed. The bounds are always pushed back. You want to tell others what they can do with their freedom, but history demonstrates that you will always fail in your attempts to draw lines that the free are not supposed to cross.

It should be clear from my second paragraph that I reject your view of Leftism being distinct enough from Liberalism to be an opponent of it. Leftism is simply Liberalism generations down the track. Marx and the Marxists simply felt that political freedom was an incomplete freedom. Today's Leftists simply feel that political freedom and Marx's economic equality are still an incomplete freedom. And tomorrow's Leftists will view the excessive freedoms of today (paradoxically, freedoms protected by certain unfreedoms, nevertheless, society is freer than it has ever been for degenerates) as still an incomplete freedom. Each generation under Liberalism, having degenerated relative to the previous one, sees the freedom that the preceding generation brought about as slavery. This creates a self-radicalizing feedback loop, with each generation taking things closer to the Left-extreme. All that you represent is a past iteration of the same problematic ideology complaining about its more recent iterations, and thus provide no solution, since your 'solution' is to revert or rollback to an earlier 'commit', iteration, or 'snapshot'. Reverting to a rose-tinted snapshot of the 1960s or 1776 perpetuates the problem. The whole machine was corrupted from the start.

The only solution, then, is a re-evaluation of values such that freedom and equality are simply eliminated from our value system. Since both inexorably lead to degeneracy, they require replacement with pre-Socratic values, such as honour and strength. Liberalism and its Leftist descendants must simply be eliminated from the list of socially-acceptable and state-sanctioned ideologies. Nothing short of that provides the necessary counter-revolution against the Enlightenment that will bring about the survival and regeneration of Man. Anything short of that simply perpetuates Liberalism and its endless battles between those perceived as oppressors and those perceived as oppressed, and the degeneration that comes about when the superior of those groups inevitably loses to its inferiors, who always have and always will rely on appeals to freedom and equality to hand them victory.

It assumes (correctly) that as you break up a tyrannical political orthodoxy that imposes itself on society, you will generate a better culture as an emergent property of freedom.

This is false for anyone who is sufficiently Right-Wing, since we do not care about inequality of power per se. It is 'true' for Leftists and Radical Centrists, such as Libertarians like yourself. More specifically:

tyrannical political orthodoxy that imposes itself on society

This is some kind of Hayekian or other liberal argument. Hayek is trying to say that 'big government' or 'statism' or some such thing is abnormal, which is false. This presupposes a hyper-individualistic Hobbesian natural state—Hobbes, contrary to common opinion, simply entertained it as a thought experiment, and did not himself believe it—resolved through a social contract, or other false origin myth for society. Unfortunately, Liberalism has warped the world so extremely that society no longer has anything but a mythical account of its own origins, with Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, and most other Leftist and/or Liberal thinkers misinterpreting Hobbes' thought experiment as gospel. This has misled society into believing that society's own authoritarian collectivism is unnecessary and dispensable.

Society, however, is necessarily authoritarian and collectivist. It was built by, and is sustainable only through, such means. There never was a natural state: humans were tribal right from the start. Tribal life was 'big government' and 'statist': the chief's will was the way. Individual property was non-existent, all was owned by the tribe. Breaking laws meant expulsion from the tribe, and thus certain death. Liberalism and Leftism thus regard something indispensable as something dispensable. Liberalism's centuries-long legacy, based on nothing but myths and rationalizations for degeneracy, has amounted to nothing more than an unprecedented degeneration, from North America to Thailand to Western Europe. Without a complete re-evaluation of values, Man will be practically extinct within a few millennia, with most of the damage done within the next few centuries. Authoritarian collectivism is ultimately the only sustainable alternative to civilizational collapse. The world's longest surviving civilizations, all of them authoritarian collectivists, such as the thousand-year Byzantine Empire, attest to the truth of that fact.

The purpose of Liberalism is to do the opposite of that: to remove all of the structures preventing you from returning to your family and prospering.

We couldn't disagree more. There are no meaningful differences between Leftism and Liberalism: that's just your outdated version of Liberalism, i.e. Libertarianism, rationalizing away Liberalism's impeccable track record of failure. What Libertarians have done is taken all of those degenerative, wretched effects of Liberalism and its underlying political values which they feel are too extreme, created these bogey categories or misunderstood existing ones such as 'Feminism', 'Leftism', and 'Marxism'—in reality, merely more updated versions of your own Liberalism—and then palmed off all of them onto those, so that you are left with something blameless and rose-tinted. You paint a mythical world in which Liberalism once worked right up until one of these imagined groups—which consists of nothing more than othered Liberals, Liberals you otherized over trivialities chiefly of an economic or political-systemic and thus unimportant nature—mysteriously rose up out of nowhere and ruined it. It is a world that never existed. Liberalism was dysfunctional from its inception, and today's dysfunctions are merely a compounding of those original dysfunctions.

Finally, I can't help but note that the Leftist's reasoning in the last line is identical to yours: he wishes to 'remove all of the structures preventing you' from self-actualizing. You see, if you omitted the word 'family', your statement would be absolutely congruent with contemporary Leftism. In conclusion, the differences between you and them are trivial and the difference is chiefly in your negative rather than positive judgement of what Liberals have done since the time you believe that they went off the rails and became 'Leftists'. But that is just a consequence of being unable to accept that this was an inevitable consequence of your own political ideology and values.

The purpose of Liberalism [or Leftism] is to remove all of the structures preventing you from [self-actualizing] and prospering.

This is just a transposing of your libertarian interpretation onto the parts of what I have written that are clearly hostile to your worldview. But your attempt at a correction of sorts does not withstand this reply.

Liberalism does not bode a Victimocracy

That's why you stop at the political level.

You unwittingly admit that Liberalism is the original victimocratic ideology. The rulers-subjects distinction simply precurses the myriad oppressor-oppressed distinctions that abound in late-modernity. Once the rulers are overthrown, the logic of the political value of freedom demands that new oppressors are identified and overthrown, so that freedom ever increases throughout the world. Hence the cis-trans distinction, the man-woman distinction, &c. are simply the original Liberal battle being fought all over again, but between different categories. New sides are merely fighting old battles. Feminists are Liberals who see men as the new kings to be overthrown, homosexualists are Liberals who see heteronormativity as the new monarchy to be overthrown, and so forth. 'Ur'-Liberalism, having stopped at political power, did not realize well enough the freedom of these persons, and so for those who value freedom and/or equality, these battles must be necessarily fought and won. Since I do not value these ideals, whose appeal and benefits are strongest to the degenerate, my view on such persons is that they should be crushed. A Liberal, however, cannot embrace this position without him becoming a rank hypocrite. Freedom and equality for me, but not for thee! You are forced to tolerate such persons, since anything else violates Liberalism itself (harm principle, NAP, etc.), and so the solution requires totally breaking with Liberalism.

What you want to do is bound Liberalism such that its logic does not unfold beyond the ruler-subjects distinction: Liberalism stops at political equality. This is nonsense, since there is no way that freedom can reliably be bounded. All attempts to do so—suffrage limited to White property-land owning men, suffrage limited to White men, suffrage limited to men, marriage limited to heterosexuals—have completely and utterly failed. The bounds are always pushed back. You want to tell others what they can do with their freedom, but history demonstrates that you will always fail in your attempts to draw lines that the free are not supposed to cross.

It should be clear from my second paragraph that I reject your view of Leftism being distinct enough from Liberalism to be an opponent of it. Leftism is simply Liberalism generations down the track. Marx and the Marxists simply felt that political freedom was an incomplete freedom. Today's Leftists simply feel that political freedom and Marx's economic equality are still an incomplete freedom. And tomorrow's Leftists will view the excessive freedoms of today (paradoxically, freedoms protected by certain unfreedoms, nevertheless, society is freer than it has ever been for degenerates) as still an incomplete freedom. Each generation under Liberalism, having degenerated relative to the previous one, sees the freedom that the preceding generation brought about as slavery. This creates a self-radicalizing feedback loop, with each generation taking things closer to the Left-extreme. All that you represent is a past iteration of the same problematic ideology complaining about its more recent iterations, and thus provide no solution, since your 'solution' is to revert or rollback to an earlier 'commit', iteration, or 'snapshot'. Reverting to a rose-tinted snapshot of the 1960s or 1776 perpetuates the problem. The whole machine was corrupted from the start.

The only solution, then, is a re-evaluation of values such that freedom and equality are simply eliminated from our value system. Since both inexorably lead to degeneracy, they require replacement with pre-Socratic values, such as honour and strength. Liberalism and its Leftist descendants must simply be eliminated from the list of socially-acceptable and state-sanctioned ideologies. Nothing short of that provides the necessary counter-revolution against the Enlightenment that will bring about the survival and regeneration of Man. Anything short of that simply perpetuates Liberalism and its endless battles between those perceived as oppressors and those perceived as oppressed, and the degeneration that comes about when the superior of those groups inevitably loses to its inferiors, who always have and always will rely on appeals to freedom and equality to hand them victory.

It assumes (correctly) that as you break up a tyrannical political orthodoxy that imposes itself on society, you will generate a better culture as an emergent property of freedom.

This is false for anyone who is sufficiently Right-Wing, since we do not care about inequality of power per se. It is 'true' for Leftists and Radical Centrists, such as Libertarians like yourself. More specifically:

tyrannical political orthodoxy that imposes itself on society

This is some kind of Hayekian or other liberal argument. Hayek is trying to say that 'big government' or 'statism' or some such thing is abnormal, which is false. This presupposes a hyper-individualistic Hobbesian natural state—Hobbes, contrary to common opinion, simply entertained it as a thought experiment, and did not himself believe it—resolved through a social contract, or other false origin myth for society. Unfortunately, Liberalism has warped the world so extremely that society no longer has anything but a mythical account of its own origins, with Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, and most other Leftist and/or Liberal thinkers misinterpreting Hobbes' thought experiment as gospel. This has misled society into believing that society's own authoritarian collectivism is unnecessary and dispensable.

Society, however, is necessarily authoritarian and collectivist. It was built by, and is sustainable only through, such means. There never was a natural state: humans were tribal right from the start. Tribal life was 'big government' and 'statist': the chief's will was the way. Individual property was non-existent, all was owned by the tribe. Breaking laws meant expulsion from the tribe, and thus certain death. Liberalism and Leftism thus regard something indispensable as something dispensable. Liberalism's centuries-long legacy, based on nothing but myths and rationalizations for degeneracy, has amounted to nothing more than an unprecedented degeneration, from North America to Thailand to Western Europe. Without a complete re-evaluation of values, Man will be practically extinct within a few millennia, with most of the damage done within the next few centuries. Authoritarian collectivism is ultimately the only sustainable alternative to civilizational collapse. The world's longest surviving civilizations, all of them authoritarian collectivists, such as the thousand-year Byzantine Empire, attest to the truth of that fact.

The purpose of Liberalism is to do the opposite of that: to remove all of the structures preventing you from returning to your family and prospering.

We couldn't disagree more. There are no meaningful differences between Leftism and Liberalism: that's just your outdated version of Liberalism, i.e. Libertarianism, rationalizing away Liberalism's impeccable track record of failure. What Libertarians have done is taken all of those degenerative, wretched effects of Liberalism and its underlying political values which they feel are too extreme, created these bogey categories or misunderstood existing ones such as 'Feminism', 'Leftism', and 'Marxism'—in reality, merely more updated versions of your own Liberalism—and then palmed off all of them onto those, so that you are left with something blameless and rose-tinted. You paint a mythical world in which Liberalism once worked right up until one of these imagined groups—which consists of nothing more than othered Liberals, Liberals you otherized over trivialities chiefly of an economic or political-systemic and thus unimportant nature—mysteriously rose up out of nowhere and ruined it. It is a world that never existed. Liberalism was dysfunctional from its inception, and today's dysfunctions are merely a compounding of those original dysfunctions.

Finally, I can't help but note that the Leftist's reasoning in the last line is identical to yours: he wishes to 'remove all of the structures preventing you' from self-actualizing. You see, if you omitted the word 'family', your statement would be absolutely congruent with contemporary Leftism. In conclusion, the differences between you and them are trivial and the difference is chiefly in your negative judgement of what Liberals have done since the time you believe that they went off the rails and became 'Leftists'.

The purpose of Liberalism [or Leftism] is to remove all of the structures preventing you from [self-actualizing] and prospering.

This is just a transposing of your libertarian interpretation onto the parts of what I have written that are clearly hostile to your worldview. But your attempt at a correction of sorts does not withstand this reply.

Liberalism does not bode a Victimocracy

That's why you stop at the political level.

You unwittingly admit that Liberalism is the original victimocratic ideology. The rulers-subjects distinction simply precurses the myriad oppressor-oppressed distinctions that abound in late-modernity. Once the rulers are overthrown, the logic of the political value of freedom demands that new oppressors are identified and overthrown, so that freedom ever increases throughout the world. Hence the cis-trans distinction, the man-woman distinction, &c. are simply the original Liberal battle being fought all over again, but between different categories. New sides are merely fighting old battles. Feminists are Liberals who see men as the new kings to be overthrown, homosexualists are Liberals who see heteronormativity as the new monarchy to be overthrown, and so forth. 'Ur'-Liberalism, having stopped at political power, did not realize well enough the freedom of these persons, and so for those who value freedom and/or equality, these battles must be necessarily fought and won. Since I do not value these ideals, whose appeal and benefits are strongest to the degenerate, my view on such persons is that they should be crushed. A Liberal, however, cannot embrace this position without him becoming a rank hypocrite. Freedom and equality for me, but not for thee! You are forced to tolerate such persons, since anything else violates Liberalism itself (harm principle, NAP, etc.), and so the solution requires totally breaking with Liberalism.

What you want to do is bound Liberalism such that its logic does not unfold beyond the ruler-subjects distinction: Liberalism stops at political equality. This is nonsense, since there is no way that freedom can reliably be bounded. All attempts to do so—suffrage limited to White property-land owning men, suffrage limited to White men, suffrage limited to men, marriage limited to heterosexuals—have completely and utterly failed. The bounds are always pushed back. You want to tell others what they can do with their freedom, but history demonstrates that you will always fail in your attempts to draw lines that the free are not supposed to cross.

It should be clear from my second paragraph that I reject your view of Leftism being distinct enough from Liberalism to be an opponent of it. Leftism is simply Liberalism generations down the track. Marx and the Marxists simply felt that political freedom was an incomplete freedom. Today's Leftists simply feel that political freedom and Marx's economic equality are still an incomplete freedom. And tomorrow's Leftists will view the excessive freedoms of today (paradoxically, freedoms protected by certain unfreedoms, nevertheless, society is freer than it has ever been for degenerates) as still an incomplete freedom. Each generation under Liberalism, having degenerated relative to the previous one, sees the freedom that the preceding generation brought about as slavery. This creates a self-radicalizing feedback loop, with each generation taking things closer to the Left-extreme. All that you represent is a past iteration of the same problematic ideology complaining about its more recent iterations, and thus provide no solution, since your 'solution' is to revert or rollback to an earlier 'commit', iteration, or 'snapshot'. Reverting to a rose-tinted snapshot of the 1960s or 1776 perpetuates the problem. The whole machine was corrupted from the start.

The only solution, then, is a re-evaluation of values such that freedom and equality are simply eliminated from our value system. Since both inexorably lead to degeneracy, they require replacement with pre-Socratic values, such as honour and strength. Liberalism and its Leftist descendants must simply be eliminated from the list of socially-acceptable and state-sanctioned ideologies. Nothing short of that provides the necessary counter-revolution against the Enlightenment that will bring about the survival and regeneration of Man. Anything short of that simply perpetuates Liberalism and its endless battles between those perceived as oppressors and those perceived as oppressed, and the degeneration that comes about when the superior of those groups inevitably loses to its inferiors, who always have and always will rely on appeals to freedom and equality to hand them victory.

It assumes (correctly) that as you break up a tyrannical political orthodoxy that imposes itself on society, you will generate a better culture as an emergent property of freedom.

This is false for anyone who is sufficiently Right-Wing, since we do not care about inequality of power per se. It is 'true' for Leftists and Radical Centrists, such as Libertarians like yourself. More specifically:

tyrannical political orthodoxy that imposes itself on society

This is some kind of Hayekian or other liberal argument. Hayek is trying to say that 'big government' or 'statism' or some such thing is abnormal, which is false. This presupposes a hyper-individualistic Hobbesian natural state—Hobbes, contrary to common opinion, simply entertained it as a thought experiment, and did not himself believe it—resolved through a social contract, or other false origin myth for society. Unfortunately, Liberalism has warped the world so extremely that society no longer has anything but a mythical account of its own origins, with Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, and most other Leftist and/or Liberal thinkers misinterpreting Hobbes' thought experiment as gospel. This has misled society into believing that society's own authoritarian collectivism is unnecessary and dispensable.

Society, however, is necessarily authoritarian and collectivist. It was built by, and is sustainable only through, such means. There never was a natural state: humans were tribal right from the start. Tribal life was 'big government' and 'statist': the chief's will was the way. Individual property was non-existent, all was owned by the tribe. Breaking laws meant expulsion from the tribe, and thus certain death. Liberalism and Leftism thus regard something indispensable as something dispensable. Liberalism's centuries-long legacy, based on nothing but myths and rationalizations for degeneracy, has amounted to nothing more than an unprecedented degeneration, from North America to Thailand to Western Europe. Without a complete re-evaluation of values, Man will be practically extinct within a few millennia, with most of the damage done within the next few centuries. Authoritarian collectivism is ultimately the only sustainable alternative to civilizational collapse. The world's longest surviving civilizations, all of them authoritarian collectivists, such as the thousand-year Byzantine Empire, attest to the truth of that fact.

The purpose of Liberalism is to do the opposite of that: to remove all of the structures preventing you from returning to your family and prospering.

We couldn't disagree more. There are no meaningful differences between Leftism and Liberalism: that's just your outdated version of Liberalism, i.e. Libertarianism, rationalizing away Liberalism's impeccable track record of failure. What Libertarians have done is taken all of those degenerative, wretched effects of Liberalism and its underlying political values which they feel are too extreme, created these bogey categories such as 'Feminism, 'Leftism', and 'Marxism'—in reality, merely more updated versions of your own Liberalism—and then palmed off all of them onto those, so that you are left with something blameless and rose-tinted. You paint a mythical world in which Liberalism once worked right up until one of these imagined groups—which consists of nothing more than othered Liberals, Liberals you otherized over trivialities chiefly of an economic or political-systemic and thus unimportant nature—mysteriously rose up out of nowhere and ruined it. It is a world that never existed. Liberalism was dysfunctional from its inception, and today's dysfunctions are merely a compounding of those original dysfunctions.

Finally, I can't help but note that the Leftist's reasoning in the last line is identical to yours: he wishes to 'remove all of the structures preventing you' from self-actualizing. You see, if you omitted the word 'family', your statement would be absolutely congruent with contemporary Leftism. In conclusion, the differences between you and them are trivial and the difference is chiefly in your negative judgement of what Liberals have done since the time you believe that they went off the rails and became 'Leftists'.

The purpose of Liberalism [or Leftism] is to remove all of the structures preventing you from [self-actualizing] and prospering.