Maoo

Yes of course this is Amerikkka

Both are a false consciousness that, as such, function to obscure class antagonism and support the capitalist order. They are a form of liberal following a slightly different set of high priests than the others, though obviously they are not separate. While many liberals laugh at, for example, Austrian School economists, they do so while incorporating the ideas from that school that fit the current canon. All it takes is laundering them through other economists.

A Marxist analysis will look at the material basis for these ideologies. They are basically the same as for liberalism - they reinforce a substantial portion of the ruling class's interests. The obvious one is that when the ruling class is interested in cutting its own taxes or regulations, this ideology is very useful. Though it really goes much farther than this: both are cults of capital in the extreme, justifying all capitalist actions as inherently just and all transgressions against them as inherently unjust. Consequently, they can be leveraged for anything that capitalists want except for maybe government grift. If a capitalist lobbying group wants a policy change they can push a "right libertarian" that wants it, easily. If a capitalist lobbying group doesn't want a policy that threatens their interests, they can fund, say, the Cato institute to tell you some bullshit about how it's bad according to their economic religion. It's not fundamentally different from how capitalists fund others members of the political class.

To the extent that it is different is that it is more extreme. It's a wrecking ball that competes with the interests of other capitalists that benefit from various government policies. So long as there's a "big government" means by which to increase profit, there will be a fight.

On the personal psychological level there is plenty to discuss but I think the false consciousness is the most important aspect. "Right libertarians" get to pretend to be an outsider political trend, even one opposed to the status quo, and openly recognize various problems in the capitalist system. For example, they get to be vaguely anti-war, at least rhetorically. And they usually try to wash their hands of the decisions made by Democrats and Republicans. Then they go and reinforce the dominant capitalist system. In this sense they are very similar to radlib socdems, just with a different aesthetic for what it means to be an "outsider".

In my experience, if you can get a right libertarian to actually read socialist theory they can actually be pipelined. Nowhere near 100% rate but better than your average lib. They will be annoying the whole time, though.

The United States, alleged land of the free, has the largest prison population on the planet.

Because they're afraid to investigate the possibility that they are wrong

I assume they mean North America, South America, and Australia.

Time to start preparing a bootstraps speech for when meemaw and peepaw can't live independently anymore.

Liberals write bad poetry

video game

The most revolutionary people I know are trans lol

"Leftist" continues to be a label that can mean basically anything

Given what American flags are made of probably carcinogenic fumes

Rhetoric is a fight and the best defense among liberals is always deflection. They are incurious and 90% of them don't care about what is actually true or happening in the world, they just want to feel good and right in their limited understanding. (Incorrectly) quibbling about language is a way, as you note, to avoid acknowledging the obvious of an ethnic cleansing happening right in front of them and by a country they openly support even in that ethic cleansing.

Rather than resolve this internal contradiction by becoming consistently against genocide, or even just shutting the fuck up because they don't even know anything about this topic, they gladly find a foothold in playing with words until they don't have to feel like they support genocide anymore even though they are still supporting the ethnic cleansing, i.e. the genocide.

Their masters know this psychology well, it is part of PR strategies to ensure that the wider settler population does not materially oppose the ethnic cleansing. Their lackeys gladly write the op-eds and soften journalists' articles to throw all of this up as a smokescreen. The liberal hubris of trusting every bit of bullshit from "the experts" at, say, The New York Times thus functions as a security blanket for liberals that might otherwise realize they're the bad guys in this situation.

Browbeating insufferable liberals about their incapacity for media criticism is something that has worked for me in the past. I would probably reserve it solely for the people for whom empathy means nothing or is entirely self-serving, at least in their current state of mind. You don't need to be as harsh on people who really do care about others but are just misled. Those people can be pulled to accurate opinions through exposure to knowledge, so getting them to come to your reading group or whatever is a better option.