I was apolitical before I became a libertarian. But, most libertarians were anti-capitalists. So, I have a theory about bleeding heart libertarians. When you accept the truth, you are compelled to admit error. It is not merely that you have to admit error, the truth will also make you socially unacceptable. But, when the bleeding heart libertarians noticed that the evidence was too much to evade, they agreed with those unpleasant facts without changing themselves too much. The people who are naturally inclined to believe in socially unacceptable positions are often very eccentric, stubborn and do not respect social norms or niceties much. It would be very surprising if the wussy libertarians find them very “likeable”. So, it is not merely that they do not sympathize much with the non-bleeding heart libertarians, they do not identify much with them either. They are likely to feel, “In hindsight, what I once believed looks stupid, but then I know it only in hindsight.” They will be somewhat uncomfortable with the view that anti-capitalists are stupid, evil or both. They would not want to antagonize the anti-capitalists or the moderate libertarians who are more valuable allies than the non-bleeding heart libertarians. So, even if they agree with the non-bleeding heart libertarians in theory, they might still identify with the anti-capitalists and the moderates. If they are too complimentary to the moderates and the anti-capitalists, their readers might assume that it is a mark of their intellectual honesty that they still admit that their opponents are brilliant, wonderful human beings. It is not surprising that their civility and charitableness does not extend to outsiders. My heart bleeds for people that are nice and not mean, and not poor people or blacks or women or such groups aligned with moronic fashionable causes.