I acknowledge that this is how libertarians see themselves, but it is inherently dishonest to assume that just because someone disagrees with you then they&#x27;re doing it out of a misunderstanding and overreaction about you &quot;trying to dismantle all of their &#x27;noble&#x27; ideas&quot;.<p>Their values can simply be different, and it is valid for them to disagree with you based on the conclusions they get from those values.<p>Aggression is defined differently by different groups after all, so the set of actions that a libertarian objects to based on their understanding of &quot;aggression&quot; would be different to a set of actions that someone else would object to based on a different understanding of &quot;aggression&quot;.<p>Obviously you disagree with their conclusion of dismissing libertarianism and blocking libertarians, and that&#x27;s fine. What&#x27;s less fine - in my eyes - is to imply that the disagreement comes from the fact that you are the only one who understands some basic Truth about the world and those that disagree are foolish and cliche for disagreeing with you.<p>That&#x27;s the sort of thing that I associate with religion, rather than an honest intellectual discussion of political merits of an ideology.