But on a more serious note, why is it that libertarian ideas are considered as "chaotic evil?"
to explain that, you have to understand that chaotic evil is an alignment that is used to describe peoples' (characters') personality types. It uses a two axis system.
One axis describes a person in terms of how well they function in organizations. People who adhere to laws, rules and work well within hierarchies and organizations are considered "lawful". Those who are more mavericky, individualistic, rebellious or otherwise antisocial, are "chaotic". In between, you have "neutral". Libertarians don't want no gummit tellin' them what to do, so, they are firmly Chaotic.
The second axis has to do with altruism. People who are interested in helping others or benefitting all of society are "good". People who are selfish, greedy, or possibly hurtful are "evil". In between is "neutral". Libertarians are all about themselves and screw everyone else, let them earn it, the lazy cocksuckers. At my most charitable I would call them neutral-leaning-toward-evil. But let's face it, really, they are evil.
Thus, chaotic evil.
Robin Hood - classic Chaotic Good.
Superman - classic Lawful Good. Often known as "Lawful Stupid".
Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Hitler - Lawful Evil
Dick Cheney - Neutral evil - he is willing to use the law or step outside it to achieve his evil ends.
Judge Dredd - Lawful Neutral. He only considers the rules, not the morality of them.
It is an imperfect system, deliberately black and white to suit the absolutist views of teenage boys, so don't get too riled by it.
The way I see it is kinda like this:
1. I don't want some authority dictating to me what I can and cannot do. In other words, I am...
2. I understand ..., but don't take that stuff too far.
Chaotic with shades of evil. You - the general plural you, libertarians - think you are islands. You accept the benefits of society (possibly without realizing it) but do not accept the obligations that come with them. Those obligations are a forfeit of some of your freedoms and some taxes. That is the cost of living in a stable, civil society. In that respect, you (still plural) are scamming the system. Which I find immoral, and thus shading toward evil.
3. Don't make stuff/organizations with the ...
4. If the stuff ain't for me, and the stuff ain't for you, why does it have to belong to a government? Can't the stuff just be ownerless until someone acquires and utilizes it so that aquisition and utilization won't be hindered by bureaucratic red tape?
That is neither chaotic or evil. It's just poorly thought out. How does someone "acquire" it? Who is eligible to "acquire" it? Could anyone just stick their flag in the ground and say, "Mine!"? Is there a limit to how much one person can "acquire"?
You see, in a representative republic, like we have, we the people
are ostensibly the government. Or rather, the government is there to represent us and our interests. If the government is not paid for and owned by the ultra-wealthy and corporations (which it is due to poor regulation), then the "stuff" whereof you speak is not owned by no one, it is owned by all of us jointly. Public parks. Roads. Utilities. Mineral rights. Natural resources. All of it all of ours. We have been conned over the last couple of decades into thinking that this sort of public commons is bad. It is not. It is the very foundation of our society. If everything is private, then we lose our common connections with each other.
The biggest assholes in America - in my opinion - are Alaskans who bitch about socialism. Each one of them receives a check every year from oil companies for drilling on state (that is, publicly owned) land. Probably the most lucrative socialistic endeavor of any of the states.
5. You wanna talk evil, interest is what's evil.
... I think you put too much stock in Ron Paul's understanding of economics.
6. Deregulate most stuff! Come up with specific, testible, and varifiable ways to protect the air, the water supply, and the food generating land that we need to survive. Then tell businesses, "hey, doing this or that will f-up our water supply, so chill out or we go buss yo' ass for f'in up stuff we all need that don't belong to you."
You say "deregulate" and then talk about what you think needs to be regulated. You named some very valid reasons why we have regulations. Mainly they are for health and safety issues. But it also includes other kinds of protection. You know, every financial mess and scam we have had since 1980 (and they have been getting progressively bigger) has been due to lack of regulation. I think you are not as libertarian as you think.
Can you name one specific regulation that you think should be abolished, off the top of your head? Most people who have a hard-on for deregulation cannot. They just think regulation in general is bad, in an abstract sense. It is an ideological thing, like religion. They just believe it without any data or evidence to support it. It got that way because they have been told over and over and over for the last 30 years by right wingers that it is bad.
I think it was nogodsforme who had a list of countries with regulation and countries without. You don't want to live in the countries without.
7. Stay the hell out of other folks affairs! Stop being the world's policeman and mind your own damn business as much as possible and only and very rarely involve yourself in international affairs, especially military when necessary (trade nonwithstanding of course).
That does not fit in the D&D alignment system. But I think it is good policy.