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.
liberty student: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!
They aren't saying that racism won't exist, they are saying that racism shouldn't exist, and that anti-racism should be a part of any libertarian agenda.
liberty student: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.
Could you clarify? I don't quite get what you mean.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
wombatron:They aren't saying that racism won't exist, they are saying that racism shouldn't exist, and that anti-racism should be a part of any libertarian agenda.
Why? It has nothing to do with libertarianism. Why conflate an anti-racism social agenda with libertarianism? I have no interest in -ANY- values you try to promote as part of libertarianism. My understanding is that adherence to the NAP is enough. The market will sort out failed or successful ideologies.
wombatron:Could you clarify? I don't quite get what you mean.
Well, I want to know where the self-proclaimed leftists get off calling other people vulgar, just because they don't share the left-libertarian social agenda. Everyone in a free market can have a different agenda. There will be freedom of religion, freedom to discriminate, freedom to do all sorts of things and it will all be libertarian EXCEPT where it violates the NAP.
So why am I labelled vulgar (iirc, you did this to me as well) just because I don't share your social values? Is this an authoritarian manifestation of weak-wristed ostracism?
Left-libertarians, for the lips service they pay to social equality, sure seem to be pretty intolerant of alternative views.
liberty student:Why? It has nothing to do with libertarianism. Why conflate an anti-racism social agenda with libertarianism? I have no interest in -ANY- values you try to promote as part of libertarianism. My understanding is that adherence to the NAP is enough. The market will sort out failed or successful ideologies.
This is more than a left vs. right debate, then; it is a thin vs. thick debate, which is an entirely different story, as there are a large number of thick libertarians of a rightist persuasion as well.
liberty student:Well, I want to know where the self-proclaimed leftists get off calling other people vulgar, just because they don't share the left-libertarian social agenda. Everyone in a free market can have a different agenda. There will be freedom of religion, freedom to discriminate, freedom to do all sorts of things and it will all be libertarian EXCEPT where it violates the NAP.
The definition of vulgar libertarian is someone that defends the results of statism/corporatism as being "free market"; that is, someone who defends, say, Wal-Mart or Microsoft as being the legitimate outcomes of a free market, when both (in their current form) in fact depend on the existence of the state. Anyone who is calling other "vulgar libertarians" merely because they aren't left-libertarians or because they are social conservatives is using the term incorrectly.
Incidentally, the opposite tendency, called "vulgar liberalism" by Carson, is attributing to the market the results of statism. It goes both ways.
liberty student:So why am I labelled vulgar (iirc, you did this to me as well) just because I don't share your social values? Is this an authoritarian manifestation of weak-wristed ostracism?
I don't recall calling you vulgar. If you are thinking of what I think you are, the post was meant to be a joke, and was not directed at anyone in particular, least of all you.
Although you did end up calling me a Marxist...
See, here, we agree. Anti-racism and such have little to nothing to do with the central libertarian message. Where I differ from most Austrians is a little in what should be, but mostly in what I think will be.
I suspect that in some senses, a truly liberarian society will be more racist. It is easily observed, even amongst people who all get along, that people tend to congregate nearest those who look the most like them. It is a natural tendency, and not one we should advocate fighting on libertarian time, as it were.
Now I'm confused. On the other hand, I never claimed to be Left. I think that maybe, for my part, people are reading certain things into my characterization of other viewpoints that aren't actually true. I am not even sure what a left-libertarian social agenda is. I just consider myself a pure libertarian, and am hopeful about what structures will actually form when people are truly free. That happens to be very local, small-scale production and a tremendous amount of economic, along with other areas, self-sovereignty. I look forward to the return of the Artistan.
wombatron: The definition of vulgar libertarian is someone that defends the results of statism/corporatism as being "free market"; that is, someone who defends, say, Wal-Mart or Microsoft as being the legitimate outcomes of a free market, when both (in their current form) in fact depend on the existence of the state. Anyone who is calling other "vulgar libertarians" merely because they aren't left-libertarians or because they are social conservatives is using the term incorrectly. Incidentally, the opposite tendency, called "vulgar liberalism" by Carson, is attributing to the market the results of statism. It goes both ways.
This is why while I think the term is completely valid on this point, but it's obvious the term has been abused or stretched considerably (I've probably done this a few times myself, actually...). I would not hesitate to use the "vulgar" term to describe an anarchist if the situation (what their misconception is regarding the market and/or free-market) merited it. I'm not surprised but have yet to read of Carson using the term "vulgar liberalism". Out of curiosity, do you know when & where he started using it?
"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
wombatron:The definition of vulgar libertarian is someone that defends the results of statism/corporatism as being "free market"; that is, someone who defends, say, Wal-Mart or Microsoft as being the legitimate outcomes of a free market, when both (in their current form) in fact depend on the existence of the state.
So... basically... if it were not for state protectionism of Wal-Mart, Microsoft, et al... they would all wither and die?
Indulge me for a moment: could it not be the case that the success of the aforementioned is due to a combination of protectionism and good entrepreneurial skills, and hence an effect of both the market and the state?
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Solomon:So... basically... if it were not for state protectionism of Wal-Mart, Microsoft, et al... they would all wither and die? Indulge me for a moment: could it not be the case that the success of the aforementioned is due to a combination of protectionism and good entrepreneurial skills, and hence an effect of both the market and the state?
Well, let's take a look at Wal-Mart for starters: here is a company utterly dependent on very distant and large-scale production of goods. It uses established roads with extremely heavy, road-damaging loads to get its goods from place to place. In order that those roads might be long enough and wide enough, particularly to carry freight to all the places Wal-Mart needs it, required immense takings through eminent domain, and continual maintenance which, clearly, government is having trouble keeping up with even when they can steal money to do it. For Wal-Mart to be considered at all viable in a free market, you'd have to not only be able to establish that an immense network of very large stores could be supplied, but that it would be affordable for a large enough market to get there to shop that they'd be profitable. Without socialized roads, I doubt Wal-Mart could exist.
Microsoft has many of the same issues, though maybe not to the same degree. However, their business model is highly dependent on invalid intellectual property protections; protections that would be simply unenforceable in a free society.
So no, the those particular corporations could not exist.
wombatron:This is more than a left vs. right debate, then; it is a thin vs. thick debate, which is an entirely different story, as there are a large number of thick libertarians of a rightist persuasion as well.
You lost me. And I don't care.
wombatron:The definition of vulgar libertarian is someone that defends the results of statism/corporatism as being "free market"; that is, someone who defends, say, Wal-Mart or Microsoft as being the legitimate outcomes of a free market, when both (in their current form) in fact depend on the existence of the state. Anyone who is calling other "vulgar libertarians" merely because they aren't left-libertarians or because they are social conservatives is using the term incorrectly.
Who defends the results of statism? Who are the vulgar libertarians?
wombatron:Incidentally, the opposite tendency, called "vulgar liberalism" by Carson, is attributing to the market the results of statism. It goes both ways.
No it doesn't. Guys like Carson are for the IWW. They are socialists with some free market rhetoric. They are the left ideologues who think that a free market experiment can, no MUST, turnout with their vision of a world without organized business, only organized labour.
wombatron:I don't recall calling you vulgar. If you are thinking of what I think you are, the post was meant to be a joke, and was not directed at anyone in particular, least of all you. Although you did end up calling me a Marxist...
I didn't find your joke funny. There is nothing libertarian about the Wobblies.
JCFolsom:Now I'm confused. On the other hand, I never claimed to be Left. I think that maybe, for my part, people are reading certain things into my characterization of other viewpoints that aren't actually true. I am not even sure what a left-libertarian social agenda is. I just consider myself a pure libertarian, and am hopeful about what structures will actually form when people are truly free. That happens to be very local, small-scale production and a tremendous amount of economic, along with other areas, self-sovereignty. I look forward to the return of the Artistan.
Oh great. A romantic. Just kidding.
You're not left. Sorry for conflating you with that group
These topics are always so productive.
Dirty lefties!
Fascist righties!
I love your sig. It's awesome.
Are you joking?
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Haha, thanks.
Acutally, now that I think about it, I should have given marx red stars and mises gold ones. heh. I'll edit it later.
Solomon: 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.
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.
This is a misnomer. Noone ever claimed that corporations and the state are one and the same. Even Carson has never claimed such. So you've ended up erecting a strawman with regaurd to those who use the term.
Incidentally, Liberty Student has no idea what he's talking about and is once again on a rampage by which he makes a bunch of inflammatory posts that straw man people and entirely evade the question at hand. It's sickening.