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: John, the state commits the violence for you. If you participate in the state, you are doing so knowing that the services and goods have been appropriated from others with the threat of violence, just as some measure is appropriated from you. Now some will argue that you have no choice, or it's ok, or any other number of rationales. But the way I see it, is that we compromise. Plain and simple, we make a decision not to risk injury or death, and tolerate smaller violent acts against us. Your definition of an anarchist includes state masochism. An anarchist doesn't use violence, and he should also probably oppose violence against himself. It's not pacifism. It's understanding that the use of force for or against is illegitimate.
John, the state commits the violence for you. If you participate in the state, you are doing so knowing that the services and goods have been appropriated from others with the threat of violence, just as some measure is appropriated from you.
Now some will argue that you have no choice, or it's ok, or any other number of rationales. But the way I see it, is that we compromise. Plain and simple, we make a decision not to risk injury or death, and tolerate smaller violent acts against us.
Your definition of an anarchist includes state masochism. An anarchist doesn't use violence, and he should also probably oppose violence against himself. It's not pacifism. It's understanding that the use of force for or against is illegitimate.
I oppose violence against myself that I can control, personally. I cannot fight the American military and police.
It's a battle I simply don't care about, as a result. Masochism would be me voting for more of it or wasting any time or money in the political process would be better invested elsewhere. Masochism is retreating from life so that there is a greater cost to me than the violent thugs.
liberty student: I haven't met the principled libertarian Nostradamus.
I haven't met the principled libertarian Nostradamus.
Nostradamus a Libertarian? I didn't know that!
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.
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.
So they twist the meaning around? What else is new!
With the definition of vulgar libertarain that you gave above, it's kind of slandering the libertarian name because it agrees with the status quo.
Brainpolice: 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. This is a misnomer.
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.
No, actually it was more of a joke.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Michael S: So they twist the meaning around? What else is new! With the definition of vulgar libertarain that you gave above, it's kind of slandering the libertarian name because it agrees with the status quo.
Huh?
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
LOL, nevermind!
I don't know if he was or not. I was making the point, that I have yet to meet a Libertarian who has Nostradamus' attributed excellence at precognition.
Most libertarians who claim to know the future, in my opinion, are trying to project their own fantasies.
liberty student: I don't know if he was or not. I was making the point, that I have yet to meet a Libertarian who has Nostradamus' attributed excellence at precognition. Most libertarians who claim to know the future, in my opinion, are trying to project their own fantasies.
Yea, sort of like the Hoppeans, who predict a segregationist tribalist dystopia?
Brainpolice:Yea, sort of like the Hoppeans, who predict a segregationist tribalist dystopia?
I'm not familiar with that. Do they predict it, or say it could be one of many possible outcomes?
It's the prognosticators who say that segregationist tribalist dystopias cannot and will not happen that are what I am talking about. These are so-called libertarians who are trying to fantasize about their own moral and cultural standards made omnipresent.
Freedom brings people together, so yes. I think it would be quite cosmopolitan.
No, government compels individuals to associate who otherwise wouldn't.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
It's hard to say. Government forces association, but without government interference, a laissez-faire association may emerge.
Although I have no problems with people diving by tribe. That's freedom. As long as they aren't after me, I am sure we can coexist.