who/what does Vulgar or big libertarians mean?

Great description Simon.  Probably the best one yet.

I think this sums up the Anti-Capitalists best.

The Anti-Capitalists: Barbarians at the Gate

Text: http://mises.org/story/2921

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw7sPq0ekIM

liberty student:

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).

I've actually stopped reading LRC for the most part, just because I find it repetative. Nevertheless, I read the site avidly for a good while and owe it quite a lot. Even now I find interesting articles on it and then there's the Rothbard archive which I greatly appreciate.

As for Cato, I never really bothered, is there anything worthwhile reading on there?

liberty student:

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.

If this wasn't so defensive, I would actually call (some points) valid criticism; I cannot really see blame being exclusive to 'one' side.  I also don't see how Mises is a 'successful rightist platform'. 

Aside from banning Niccolo, the forum has been very tolerate of supposedly "leftist" ideas. 

Differences in ideas & opinions always seems to lead to ideological saber rattling & potential flame wars, here.  What happened to the common ground?  Did someone zone it off, or what?

GilesStratton:

I've actually stopped reading LRC for the most part, just because I find it repetative. Nevertheless, I read the site avidly for a good while and owe it quite a lot. Even now I find interesting articles on it and then there's the Rothbard archive which I greatly appreciate.

I was pretty zealous for awhile, but I have had to back off with the economic climate what it is, I can't afford 2 hours every day to follow one website, 6 days a week.  Yeah a lot of it is repetitive.  But it's also pretty diverse which is neat.  I'm not really into health or medicine, but the Bill Sardi podcast was one of the best yet and I certainly am smarter for listening to it.

liberty student:

GilesStratton:

I've actually stopped reading LRC for the most part, just because I find it repetative. Nevertheless, I read the site avidly for a good while and owe it quite a lot. Even now I find interesting articles on it and then there's the Rothbard archive which I greatly appreciate.

I was pretty zealous for awhile, but I have had to back off with the economic climate what it is, I can't afford 2 hours every day to follow one website, 6 days a week.  Yeah a lot of it is repetitive.  But it's also pretty diverse which is neat.  I'm not really into health or medicine, but the Bill Sardi podcast was one of the best yet and I certainly am smarter for listening to it.

I've  only listened to a few of the podcasts but I think they're a really good idea. I enjoyed the ones I listened to with Hoppe and Block, and I'll listen to the Sardi one when I get the chance.

Nitroadict:

If this wasn't so defensive, I would actually call (some points) valid criticism; I cannot really see blame being exclusive to 'one' side.

I didn't think it was defensive.  I'm strictly on offense from now on.  But there is a difference.  I don't oppose moronic viewpoints.  I will promote valid ones.  Opposition is just a battle for engagement. I want to win.  Break the enemy ranks.  See them driven before me, hear the lamentations of their women and all that good stuff.

Nitroadict:

I also don't see how Mises is a 'successful rightist platform'.

Well, it is successful.  And it is pro-state, pro-corporatist as Carson would have us believe.  Leftists identify themselves as such.  It is rare, or even never that I see "rightists" discuss themselves as being on the ideological right here at Mises or even on blogs.  It's a left fascination to identify themselves as such, and brand everyone else a conservative or right winger, whether they fit that profile (whatever it may be) or not.

But note, so-called non-left-libertarians are successful.  Left-libertarians are not.  Much like how little came out of Rothbard's alliance with the left in the 70s, and the results of his work with the old right AmConMag crowd, and Ron Paul.

Nitroadict:

Aside from banning Niccolo, the forum has been very tolerate of supposedly "leftist" ideas.

Niccolo was banned for being a jerk, not a leftist.  He had a serious deficit when it came to social skills.  He made my point about parasitism off of the right to promote the left.

Nitroadict:

Differences in ideas & opinions always seems to lead to ideological saber rattling & potential flame wars, here.  What happened to the common ground?  Did someone zone it off, or what?

I've moved closer to your position in the last 6 months, how much closer have you moved to mine?  It's easy to ask for the common ground when your feet are rooted in one spot.

The truth is the common ground.  It's what attracted me to libertarianism.  Not the "what could be" of soft socialist dreamers and closet social doctrinaires.

I would say that at least we have the NAP as common ground, but that isn't necessarily true here either.

liberty student:

Nitroadict:

Differences in ideas & opinions always seems to lead to ideological saber rattling & potential flame wars, here.  What happened to the common ground?  Did someone zone it off, or what?

I've moved closer to your position in the last 6 months, how much closer have you moved to mine?  It's easy to ask for the common ground when your feet are rooted in one spot.

The truth is the common ground.  It's what attracted me to libertarianism.  Not the "what could be" of soft socialist dreamers and closet social doctrinaires.

Your on fire in this thread LS. I like that the truth is the common ground, I will have to remember that. Margaret Thatcher once said that compromise is what occurs in the absence of leadership.

liberty student:

Nitroadict:

If this wasn't so defensive, I would actually call (some points) valid criticism; I cannot really see blame being exclusive to 'one' side.

I didn't think it was defensive.  I'm strictly on offense from now on.  But there is a difference.  I don't oppose moronic viewpoints.  I will promote valid ones.  Opposition is just a battle for engagement. I want to win.  Break the enemy ranks.  See them driven before me, hear the lamentations of their women and all that good stuff.

Nitroadict:

I also don't see how Mises is a 'successful rightist platform'.

Well, it is successful.  And it is pro-state, pro-corporatist as Carson would have us believe.  Leftists identify themselves as such.  It is rare, or even never that I see "rightists" discuss themselves as being on the ideological right here at Mises or even on blogs.  It's a left fascination to identify themselves as such, and brand everyone else a conservative or right winger, whether they fit that profile (whatever it may be) or not.

But note, so-called non-left-libertarians are successful.  Left-libertarians are not.  Much like how little came out of Rothbard's alliance with the left in the 70s, and the results of his work with the old right AmConMag crowd, and Ron Paul.

Nitroadict:

Aside from banning Niccolo, the forum has been very tolerate of supposedly "leftist" ideas.

Niccolo was banned for being a jerk, not a leftist.  He had a serious deficit when it came to social skills.  He made my point about parasitism off of the right to promote the left.

Nitroadict:

Differences in ideas & opinions always seems to lead to ideological saber rattling & potential flame wars, here.  What happened to the common ground?  Did someone zone it off, or what?

I've moved closer to your position in the last 6 months, how much closer have you moved to mine?  It's easy to ask for the common ground when your feet are rooted in one spot.

The truth is the common ground.  It's what attracted me to libertarianism.  Not the "what could be" of soft socialist dreamers and closet social doctrinaires.

<...*kind of a long post, I apologize to the OP for continuing the tangent here...>

I still don't think niccolo wasn't be any less of a jerk than this forum has seen before; although, in all fairness, others have been banned before as well.  I don't think it was unwarranted to suspect his criticism of Lew Rockwell might've been the straw that broke the camel's back, but whatever,  I won't force others to believe it :)

I don't really measure nor care about well my position is aligned with others; I think it is all a power trap, with those involved having to defend positions & alliances, etc. etc. etc.  to the point where it all seems we are all separate, little states involved in meta-arguments & meta-bickering about arguing & bickering about topics that seemed to get derailed frequently.  More sickening is that I cannot say that I have not taken part of this myself.   

Then again, I've been prone to cynicism (and various todd may writings) as of late, so this jaded state may be unique for me, I dunno.

It all seems completely counter to those who claim to either fight against state coercion (which involves minarchists, who advocate the state never going beyond a limit), or those who claim against hierarchy (with the persecution of other's perceived alliances & associations with certain individuals, in concert with the use of terms, used against them in argumentative power plays).

I stopped having petty conflicts when I realized minarchism is not going to prevent anarchism anymore than either of those, by themselves, is not going to be able to stomp out Statism (in short: both are required, power is not purely repressive, power concentrates at various points, etc. ).

I supposed I've taken on a more of a meta or a longer than long term view on things, as of late.  I only wish I could explain myself a bit more, but reading 10 different books at once (averaging 1 to 5 pages every other day for all total), amid trying to sustain a standard of living with minimal b.s. from the state's monopoly of the maintenance of one's life (as well whatever social life one might garnish), does eat up a bit of time (getting sick, traveling every once in a while & other spontaneous stuff included).

As for "what could be", & I'm assuming by proxy you mean those that engage in writing & developing theories relating to libertarianism & anarchism, they are important.

I think it is silly to get hung up on accusations of socialism, however, as a free-market would have to respect voluntary socialism & alternative competing ideologies, but only insofar as they can compete with others (such as market anarchism, etc.)

Also, truth may be the common ground, but there is also more than one truth.  There is more than one answer too, methinks.  If that makes me a coward, the odd man out, or whatever, so be it, I guess.

The approaches may differ, but I don't believe there are multiple versions of the facts at play at any given time.

The truth is the truth.  How we respond to that might be different.

liberty student:

The approaches may differ, but I don't believe there are multiple versions of the facts at play at any given time.

The truth is the truth.  How we respond to that might be different.

Indeed, I forgot to clarify I meant with approaches, not facts.  The interpretations of the facts are also different as well.

liberty student:

But note, so-called non-left-libertarians are successful.  Left-libertarians are not.  Much like how little came out of Rothbard's alliance with the left in the 70s, and the results of his work with the old right AmConMag crowd, and Ron Paul.

Well, libertarians with more vulgar tendencies have a bigger, more active presence on the web, anyway. I fail to see how anything remotely libertarian could really be called "successful", of late.

To the degree that what you say is true, it is true largely because the corporatists propose a less radical change than more consistent libertarians. Face it, people like their big, flashy, megacorporate consumer culture, where your status is displayed in the brand of your jeans. Principled libertarian theory says such things would be radically diminished, if not disappeared in a truly liberated society. Corporatists think that somehow, you can have all the business structures of State persist without the State. I guess we'll see.

JCFolsom:

Well, libertarians with more vulgar tendencies have a bigger, more active presence on the web, anyway. I fail to see how anything remotely libertarian could really be called "successful", of late.

Vulgar tendencies.  I love it.  You make it sound like they are all into dirty sex or something.

JCFolsom:

To the degree that what you say is true, it is true largely because the corporatists propose a less radical change than more consistent libertarians.

I don't buy this.  More consistent?  You mean the people who break Macy's windows or blog about philosophy?  How about, they don't actually engage in productive behaviour, and (I'm guessing) if not for the anonymity of the web, we'd see that many of them do not work, or barely work, or actually live of the state in one form or another.

JCFolsom:

Principled libertarian theory says such things would be radically diminished, if not disappeared in a truly liberated society.

I haven't met the principled libertarian Nostradamus.   What does he say about my prospects for finding true love?

Anyone who says they know what a libertarian society will look like is either full of it, or doing some amazing drugs.

JCFolsom:

Corporatists think that somehow, you can have all the business structures of State persist without the State. I guess we'll see.

Corporatists need the state to be corporatists.  I will ask again.  Who is this anti-state pro-state libertarian?  Is he a fictional character, or has Kevin Carson actually discovered a new breed of hypocrite, like pro-war libertarians?

Name him!

liberty student:

Name him!

Kinsella appears to be one. Austrians in general do, really. I'm not sure about you, Lib. You might just be sensitive to the lingo because of a rightist (fascist) background, one which I relate to, believe me.

JCFolsom:

Kinsella appears to be one.

Kinsella?  Gimme a break.

JCFolsom:

Austrians in general do, really.

Don't mess with Mises.

JCFolsom:

I'm not sure about you, Lib. You might just be sensitive to the lingo because of a rightist (fascist) background, one which I relate to, believe me.

I was ignorant, but I was never a fascist.  I was a conservative and I tend to have conservative perspectives.  I have always been for peace and personal liberty, I simply did not have a consistent philosophical and ethical framework to base those perspectives upon.

The absence of the state is a free market.  In a free market, anything can (and likely will) happen.  People might start up corporations.  People might agree to do business with corporations.  Corporations will have to survive without the governmental largesse that allows them to grow beyond an efficient size.

Who knows?

However I would argue that it is vulgar to believe something is possible in the absence of the state.  Wrong-headed, misguided, uninformed, optimistic etc.  But to imply that they are less of a libertarian because they see a potential for different constructs outside of a state paradigm, well...  That's just plain mean.

And besides, the left-libs like BP and Juan who seem to think that racism won't exist, well I think that's sorta vulgar then.  Who are they to tell me that people can't and won't be allowed to discriminate?  Damn social planners.  Now that's VULGAR!

 

PS, how come no one commented on my Conan bit?