You have to admit that the oft-held view that the market will solve all problems is a clear example of an irrational viewpoint though.

One of the things you're going to have to get used to here if you want to stay is that the regulars here have generally given their views some serious thought. If you talk to a libertarian on LW, he will have read up on his Friedman, possibly some Hayek and von Mises too, not to mention having at least an undergraduate level understanding of economics. If you assume they're using lowest-common-denominator arguments they will assume you are either ignorant of the actual facts of the matter or are being intentionally patronizing.

The same goes for any ideology, right or left; if people talk about it, it will be a fairly nuanced discussion and if you follow it seriously you'll be up to your eyeballs in PubMed and Jstor papers for the next few hours if not actually buying books. I think that's why you hardly see anyone advocating theistic religion, capital-c Communism or any other well-debunked ideology; they can't put up the facts and end up getting downvoted out of existence.

If you disagree, then it really seems to me that you have some strange double standard, where right-wing ideology is somehow subject to different rules than other forms of ideology.

I guess it's lucky I don't then; people are just as capable of being irrational about right wing politics as they are about anything else under the sun. Politics brings out the ape in all of us, so it makes sense that there are so many stupid proponents of defensible ideologies.

But, as the local saying goes, 'reversed stupidity is not intelligence.' If the dumbest man in the world tells you the sky is blue, he's not any less right for it. The only way to find out if an argument is right is to examine it for soundness and validity, and until you've actually judged it's merits your opinions are by definition prejudicial.