system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Libertarians are often times naive about how the world actually works.

I have a few friends who are Libertarian.  It often times annoys me because they all voted for Trump, not because they actually like Trump but simply because between him vs. a Democrat, they felt like Trump's America would be less intrusive to the "free market" they imagine exists and to individual liberties.

I think what Libertarians often times fail to grasp is that without sensible regulation and government intervention, the nature of wealth is to concentrate in the hands of a very small group of individuals.  They like to imagine this fair, egalitarian playing field where the opportunities and obstacles we all face are the same, and where outcomes are determined by individual merits.  Work ethos, intelligence, education, etc.  I think that point of view is hopelessly naive.  Previous generations of people have set up a society where (to use baseball metaphors) some people are born on third base, and other people are born at home plate, and some people are born in the parking lot, etc.  And the people born on third base have used their individual liberties to set things up in such a way that people who were born into less fortunate circumstances will always be fighting an uphill battle, not because of regulation or government interference in the market, but simply as a feature of market capitalism.  

Also, the idea that "taxation is theft" is, to me, a horrid misunderstanding of what society is, what money is, and what taxes are.  If we're talking about 2,000 years ago where there were some people who had to be 100 percent self-reliant, I could get behind the idea that taxation is theft.  However in 2018 America, no one is anywhere near self-reliant.  There are schools and roads and police and a military and a host of other national institutions that constitute this society we live in, and none of our lives would be possible without those things.  Well, maybe one or two of us, but the exceptions prove the rule.  If we go to work for a company that pays us a salary, Libertarians imagine that they "earned" 100 percent of that money, when in fact they didn't.  That company could only exist in the first place because of the society built around it, and that employee can only access that company and the benefits from working for it because of the society built around it.  So to earn that money without paying anything back to the society in order to sustain it, is actually theft.  Taxes are not theft, but earning money and not paying taxes on it, is theft.  Your'e stealing from society if you don't sustain the society that enabled you to earn the money.

Further, the one area where I tend to agree with Libertarians is in the realm of social freedoms.  Ie marriage laws, freedom to smoke pot or use drugs, reproductive freedom, etc.  However, Libertarians either A: Vote Republican because they care more about economic freedom than they do about social freedom, or B: Vote for a Libertarian candidate, who if elected would have no choice in congress or the senate but to end up backing Republicans in most cases in order to get anything accomplished.  So by throwing their political support behind Republicans, Libertarians are actively contributing to a party who wants to erode social freedoms in favor of religious-themed regulation and intrusion into our social lives.

In short, I see Libertarian ideology as an ideology that may have made some sense at different points in history, but is fundamentally incompatible with life in 2018 in an industrialized nation.  And I see most Libertarians as confused and uninformed as to how modern life actually works.
gpt
The first rule of libertarianism (and most other isms) is that whatever you think libertarianism is is wrong. The second rule of libertarianism (and most other isms) is that it's nearly impossible for more than 3 libertarians to agree on anything except a list of non-libertarian things they disagree with.

That being said can you provide an example of a large ideological grouping that doesn't have at least some portion of people who self identify as that group who are a bit naive about how the world works?