I am sick of the pseudo libertarians.

The ones that label people as vulgar libertarians and call themselved progressive libertarians or socalist libertarians ... it is ridiculous I wish they would stop trying to hijack the label.... They already hijacked the liberal label....

people I am talking about ... Noam Chomsky and Bill Maher

just a rant

Mattes:

The ones that label people as vulgar libertarians and call themselved progressive libertarians or socalist libertarians ... it is ridiculous I wish they would stop trying to hijack the label.... They already hijacked the liberal label....

people I am talking about ... Noam Chomsky and Bill Maher

just a rant

I'm not a psuedo-libertarian. I hate Chomsky and Maher and they are not good examples of left-libertarians (I'd argue that they aren't libertarians at all; Chomsky is a Marxist in disguise and Maher is just another left-of-center modern liberal), which is what you're really trying to critisize: left-libertarianism. I label people as vulgar libertarians when they show a blatant tendency to defend corporatism in the name of the free market (an obvious fallacy) and defend property titles as they currently exist regaurdless of a proper theory of justice in property aquisition (an extension of the errors that can take place as a consequence of value-free utilitarianism) and treat the state as if it were a legitimate private property owner (a blatant legitimization of the state). The criticism of vulgar libertarianism itself is perfectly sound - from a Rothbardian standpoint even.

As for hijacking, the term "libertarian" derived from socialist anarchists first if you want to be accurate. "Libertarian" was initially synanomous with anarchist, and anarchism at the time was dominantly associated with socialism (and still is for that matter). The term "libertarian" and the philosophy thereof pre-exists the "old right" by quite some time, and the "old right" barely used the term to my knowledge. If anything, it is the Libertarian Party and the political right in the 50's and 60's who "stole" the term. Before this period, it would have been unthinkable for a non-anarchist to label themselves "libertarian" to begin with. Today, at least in America, it's unfortunately virtually synanomous with minarchism and constitutionalism.

Brainpolice:

I'm not a psuedo-libertarian.

Defensive much?

 

 

liberty student:

Brainpolice:

I'm not a psuedo-libertarian.

Defensive much?

 

 

Yes, I will defend myself when I am being misrepresented. Any rational person would.

Brainpolice:

I label people as vulgar libertarians when they show a blatant tendency to defend corporatism in the name of the free market (an obvious fallacy) and defend property titles as they currently exist regaurdless of a proper theory of justice in property aquisition (an extension of the errors that can take place as a consequence of value-free utilitarianism) and treat the state as if it were a legitimate private property owner (a blatant legitimization of the state). The criticism of vulgar libertarianism itself is perfectly sound - from a Rothbardian standpoint even.

All the arguments I have heard criticizing "vulgar libertarianism" always used it in the sense of libertarians not supporting affirmative action laws and desegregation on private property.

But I would agree with your argument on what you label "vulgar libertarianism" But I am starting to learn that we can no longer trust in titles because everyone has private definitions...

Mattes:

Brainpolice:

I label people as vulgar libertarians when they show a blatant tendency to defend corporatism in the name of the free market (an obvious fallacy) and defend property titles as they currently exist regaurdless of a proper theory of justice in property aquisition (an extension of the errors that can take place as a consequence of value-free utilitarianism) and treat the state as if it were a legitimate private property owner (a blatant legitimization of the state). The criticism of vulgar libertarianism itself is perfectly sound - from a Rothbardian standpoint even.

All the arguments I have heard criticizing "vulgar libertarianism" always used it in the sense of libertarians not supporting affirmative action laws and desegregation on private property.

But I would agree with your argument on what you label "vulgar libertarianism"

I have never ever seen the term used in that context. I must be missing something.

To put it in context, it would be an example of vulgar libertarianism to defend institutional/state segregation and state-imposed immigration restriction by treating the state as if it were a legitimate private property owner.

Brainpolice:

To put it in context, it would be an example of vulgar libertarianism to defend institutional/state segregation and state-imposed immigration restriction by treating the state as if it were a legitimate private property owner.

Agreed I think majority of libertarians would oppose Jim Crowe laws but would disagree with the Civil Rights act 1964 because of its regulation of private property and business

To concur with you in a somewhat different context: yes, I am angered by the fact that people like Chomsky and Maher can get away with calling themselves libertarians. While Chomsky declares himself to be an anarcho-syndicalist and while anarcho-syndicalism can theoretically be libertarian (although my experience with many an-synds is that they are outright hostile to libertarians and seem a lot like Marxists to me), I think that he's essentially a Marxist. He defends state interventions of all kinds, especially if it has to do with the welfare state, he believes that political democracy is "more accountable than private power", and he seems to think that an actual strengthening of the state is a logical precondition for anarchism (which gives him away as a Marxist). He's mostly just a rhetoritician, which makes sense in light of his interest in linguistics.

Also while I don't want to get into a debate over policy really... I want to say in defense of immigration laws... I understand the natural rights defense of freedom of people to move from place to place... but at the same time while we have the welfare safety net and public school systems and illegal immigrants largely not paying for them.... it is maximizing liberty by preventing immigration which in turn prevents welfare expansion which prevents growing taxation.

In criticism of immigration laws Global Apartheid laws, many of those illegal immigrants don't go to school or avail of social services. They are after all, illegals. These laws make rich and poor countries both poorer.

 

PS. I finally found a good Reason article to link to.

I have had many clients over the years who had an illegal immigration status who paid taxes (Remember people are still often able to obtain social security numbers when they come here illegally) through jobs that they worked in this country. Nevertheless, most of them were never able to get public aid and social securrity benefits as a result of having an illegal status - even though they paid all those taxes (Having a social security number might enable a person with an illegal status to get a job. However, it ordinarily does not enable them to receive any public aid or social security benefits). I am for open borders. I believe that my view on immigration is more consistent with libertarian ideals.

I didn't mean to spark an immigration debate and I hope that this thread doesn't devolve that way.

Matt:

All the arguments I have heard criticizing "vulgar libertarianism" always used it in the sense of libertarians not supporting affirmative action laws and desegregation on private property.

But I would agree with your argument on what you label "vulgar libertarianism" But I am starting to learn that we can no longer trust in titles because everyone has private definitions...

I think the problem is, here, that you are reading too much into certain arguments without taking into account the context. Let's take rent control, for example. Some would say it is wrong and should not exist. They are correct, in principle. However, actuals are more complicated. The owners of apartment complexes are benefited greatly by operating in an environment where supply is artificially restricted by building codes, regulations, zoning, and "public" lands. In some cities here in California, the red tape can add over $50K and years of waiting to your expenses if you want to build. Thus, landlords are able to charge higher rents than a truly free market would actually support. Thus, the actual situation, and the sequence in which government interventions should be ended (all at once, really, but within the context of current political realities), can be up for debate.

However, if you were to come in at the middle of a conversation where people were arguing about the above issues, you might conclude that one is arguing to continue rent control, while the other is arguing to end it, the latter position clearly being the more libertarian, in principle.

However, maybe that's not what happened at all. I don't know, but I hope this helps.

JCFolsom:

However, if you were to come in at the middle of a conversation where people were arguing about the above issues, you might conclude that one is arguing to continue rent control, while the other is arguing to end it, the latter position clearly being the more libertarian, in principle.

Bingo.  Well said.

 

JCFolsom:

I think the problem is, here, that you are reading too much into certain arguments without taking into account the context. Let's take rent control, for example. Some would say it is wrong and should not exist. They are correct, in principle. However, actuals are more complicated. The owners of apartment complexes are benefited greatly by operating in an environment where supply is artificially restricted by building codes, regulations, zoning, and "public" lands. In some cities here in California, the red tape can add over $50K and years of waiting to your expenses if you want to build. Thus, landlords are able to charge higher rents than a truly free market would actually support. Thus, the actual situation, and the sequence in which government interventions should be ended (all at once, really, but within the context of current political realities), can be up for debate.

However, if you were to come in at the middle of a conversation where people were arguing about the above issues, you might conclude that one is arguing to continue rent control, while the other is arguing to end it, the latter position clearly being the more libertarian, in principle.

However, maybe that's not what happened at all. I don't know, but I hope this helps.

I think that this Long article is relevant here.