(respond to pdnois thoughtful note)

"People who break rules just for the sake of breaking them aren't libertarians, they're idiots. "

-> they're not breaking them 'to break them' - they're breaking them because the rule doesn't serve their immediate purpose.

Like 'talking loud on a train'.

People who do that are not doing so 'just for spite' (sometimes) but rather, the social constraint is too much for them in the moment.

They are putting themselves 'above the (social) law'.

Most of the time, people lack the self awareness and are oblivious to their own actions in this regard especially under the veil of an ideology.

In the more ideological sense, Libertarians are often opposed to 'regulations' on the grounds that it 'limits their choice' etc. but those 'choices' have external effects on those around them.

The Ego is the greatest deluder and it's why self awareness is so hard.

I believe this is the 'root' of what the author is getting at. The Egoic aspiration towards supposed 'freedom' is often an ideological guise for trampling on others and just the pursuit of raw, unhindered selfish desire.

But 'without awareness'. Or worse - 'suppressed awareness'.

That's the key factor here: the 'lack of self awareness' and the deep motivation for people to put themselves before others - that drives this.

You see it all the time in callous Executive statements - it's why they seem so 'detached' - in their minds they are not acting 'badly' or 'immorally' - they're just doing what's good for them (often under the guise of 'shareholder' ideology, which is rooted in classic free market liberalism.), without any kind of self awareness.

And why in some competitive systems, a sense of self awareness can be a detriment.

And by the way - this 'tension' is right at the heart of Adam Smith.

Adam Smith was deeply concerned with the moral outcome - he was a (Christian) Ethicist, before he was an Economist. He wrote more about the issues of power than comparative value.

Friedman is like Adam Smith without the 'self consideration'.

> They are putting themselves 'above the (social) law'.

There is no “social law”; not in the US, at least.

We have never been more divided as to what constitutes appropriate behavior in public. We are not an ethnostate (nor should we be), so all social behavior in the public at-large is essentially undertaken on a battleground. Every ideology, sub-ethnicity, and social group has its own competing norms that often conflict. At times, expressing behavior that is normal (for you) can inadvertently become a political statement and a call to conflict.

Talking loud on a train, as you mentioned, may be unacceptable to some and perfectly normal to others based on culture. Not to mention biological aspects such as neurodivergence.

“Regulation” also does not happen in a vacuum. Regulation imposes a particular viewpoint, one that all may not agree with. These days, the majority may even disagree with the imposed viewpoint, as our ruling class is compromised.

“Implicit regulation” through vague norms is even worse, as you are inevitably oppressing some groups based on their cultural characteristics, and not letting them argue against it. Laws can be debated at least, even if they are bad laws.

It may be that multicultural societies are doomed to implode. (I certainly hope not.) If we are to have a chance of keeping them afloat, light-touch governance and permissive norms are probably the only hope. Perhaps this can be coupled with voluntary collective norms that are crafted as a nation. But we can’t object too loudly if some groups don’t hold to these norms, as long as they are not violating fundamental rights (which we must also find a way to agree upon!).