I heard the term vulgar libertarians a few times on this site who and what does the term mean?
Thanks,
Michael
One could always just google or wiki it, or go to the blog of Kevin Carson, who coined the term. It essentially refers to the mistake of defending the status quo model of buisiness as if it came about through a free market process by misapplying free market theory, and I think it's silly to deny that this mistake is sometimes made by various free market libertarians.
It's typically a left-libertarian attack on minarchists (petit statists) and right-libertarians. I say this because you will rarely read the people who are termed vulgar refer to themselves that way, and it is almost exclusively used by left-libertarians when referring to anyone outside their ethical and philosophical structure.
It's meant to be derogatory.
The LF dictionary keeps sending me to this site: http://www.stephankinsella.com/
I kid, of course.
Vulgar libertarian refers to those libertarians who support the current corporatist companies that dominate the state-regulated market as if they were products of a truly free market.
Morty:Vulgar libertarian refers to those libertarians who support the current corporatist companies that dominate the state-regulated market as if they were products of a truly free market.
That's nonsense. I don't know one real libertarian who would claim such. I think the so-called vulgar libertarians are cognizant of the fact that all business, including the current large corporations benefit from state influence and in many cases solicit it as part of their business model.
This is typical of making vulgar libertarians sound like statists in libertarian clothing which is a favorite left-libertarian attack and slander.
I know because I have been called a vulgar libertarian, when I am anti-state, and an anarchist. The person who referred to me as vulgar was searching for an epithet that was more sophisticated than "doodie-head".
I'm neither a left-libertarian nor someone who uses the term "vulgar libertarian" very often. But if you ask someone who is and does, you'll likely get an answer similar to mine.
So CATO?
It can also mean a libertarian who rejects market-based activism in favor of political activism. But as previously suggested, it refers mainly to unprincipled Libertarians - that is, those who support the state out of "pragmatism" or for utilitarian reasons.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I think the so-called vulgar libertarians are cognizant of the fact that all business, including the current large corporations benefit from state influence and in many cases solicit it as part of their business model.
Yes, and then they proceed to selectively defend it anyways, conveniently switching back and forth between trying to draw a distinction between laissez-fair and a corporate state and simultaneously having the urge to defend questionable elements in the current economic climate. To deny that this is a concern at all strikes me as silly.
Well yes, the vulgar libertarian does function as a statist in that theyn legitimize the efects of statism and play the role of conservative. How dare principled libertarians call thm out on this!
Or, what is more likely is that you were falling into the trap of being knee-jerkedly pro-buisiness, and they called you out on it.
Brainpolice: One could always just google or wiki it, or go to the blog of Kevin Carson, who coined the term. It essentially refers to the mistake of defending the status quo model of buisiness as if it came about through a free market process by misapplying free market theory, and I think it's silly to deny that this mistake is sometimes made by various free market libertarians.
I did google and wiki it. I posted because I wanted more opinions.
Thanks, I will check Kevin Carson out!
It is a term that came about to describe others, to simplify it & put it in perspective when compared to other terms. BP's definition is sound, but there is also the various usages of it (of which, many may or may not be correct), which sadly you will not really know unless you start a few arguments & muck around with definitions & terms with others (or watch them, quite a few seem to pop up here). I suggest you read on the originator of the term (Kevin Carson), & decide for yourself, rather than listen to anyone with a bias for or against the term.Interestingly, I remembered that the following were used in similar fashion to describe what a "vulgar libertarian" is: "beltway libertarian, capital 'L' libertarian, cosmopolitan libertarian, paleo-libertarian, etc." However, imo, the main point about the "vulgar" term is more so the rationalization of the current market as the *free market* (which it most certainly isn't), as anyone with any label can, by some logic, rationale, etc., to do this. Anyone, regardless of the labels they identify with, can be prone to defending the status quo; if they aren't, they probably did at some point before their knowledge base increased to what it is in the present-day (i.e. I was a leftist at one point, so obviously I did my fair share of defending the status quo & did less & less of it as I learned more).
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Brainpolice:Yes, and then they proceed to selectively defend it anyways, conveniently switching back and forth between trying to draw a distinction between laissez-fair and a corporate state and simultaneously having the urge to defend questionable elements in the current economic climate. To deny that this is a concern at all strikes me as silly.
Who does this? Names. I think we're all tired of strawmen.
Brainpolice:Well yes, the vulgar libertarian does function as a statist in that theyn legitimize the efects of statism and play the role of conservative. How dare principled libertarians call thm out on this!
Yeah, all of the principled bloggers, who lay their keyboards on the line daily, sure have the guts to call them out.
Brainpolice:Or, what is more likely is that you were falling into the trap of being knee-jerkedly pro-buisiness, and they called you out on it.
I know your friend Niccolo has called me such several times. I believe he also thinks Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and a whole cast of characters at Mises are vulgar libertarians. Do you agree that they are? Because I don't think my opinion on business is any different than theirs.
Have you ever operated a business BP? I'm talking your employment +1, or a model where you generate revenue and pay yourself in a formal manner. It's easy for people to criticize, when they only benefit from the trade and efficiencies created by others (youtube, guitar strings), a totally different manner when you have to participate in the market as a producer, not just a consumer.
Personally, I believe most western marxists only get away with their philosophies because someone else is willing to fly around the world and bomb foreigners into submission to subsidize domestic consumption. I think anyone in business knows, that marxism and leftist ideologies generally are a recipe for disaster in the commercial sphere, and I'm talking on the micro, non-corporate level as well.
liberty student: It's typically a left-libertarian attack on minarchists (petit statists) and right-libertarians. I say this because you will rarely read the people who are termed vulgar refer to themselves that way, and it is almost exclusively used by left-libertarians when referring to anyone outside their ethical and philosophical structure. It's meant to be derogatory.
I think it's thrown around a bit too often on these boards, nonetheless it is a valid criticism.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:I think it's thrown around a bit too often on these boards, nonetheless it is a valid criticism.
Yes, and yes. My issue is, who is this unicorn of libertarianism who defends state interference in business?
In other words, who is this anti-state state apologist. I want to know who he is that this term is coined after, or is it just more mindless slang like Carson's "Misoid" name calling. Or is it a strawman that Carson has created?
Leftists like Carson kill me. They want to lead a revolution, but they can never stand for anything, they exist only to tear other people or ideas down. That doesn't work. You will attract other people who are jealous or envious or cynical, but it has no momentum, no energy. Like Brad "apolitical" Spangler, leading a political demonstration. The leftists are so confused about what they actually stand for, they end up trying to be like the "rightists" but can't pull it off because they don't have the ideological foundation behind what they are doing.
Part of why Ron Paul was so successful was that he always tried to turn negative positions into positive ones. He's not against war, he's for peace. He's not against welfare, he's for self-sufficiency. He's not for deregulation, he's for freedom of choice.
Anyway, I think if you travel to the so-called "rightist" (make no mistake, Carson and his ilk do regard Rockwell et al as vulgar libertarians) sites (like Mises, LRC, Cato), you will see they are flourishing (because they have a legitimate and sane approach to an insane world), while the leftists are still trying to hock their books through Blogger (also run by a massive corporation which receives state benefit).
Of course, that doesn't stop leftists from using successful rightist platforms like Mises to promote what are essentially anti-Misesian views. Because when you produce nothing, or nothing successful, you have to become a parasite on the thing you dislike, in order to have a pulpit to criticize from.
The irony and hypocrisy is so thick, you could conceive children on it.
As the term is most commonly employed, it is an epithet used by lefties to designate any libertarian who does not believe that corporations and the state are one and the same.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!