There was a time when I found criticisms of "vulgar libertarianism" to be thoughtful and apt. It was originally a genuine critique of how some libertarians conflate the current system with a free market. Discussion was civil and confined to maybe a handful of blogs.
But over time, it has gradually evolved into an insane (and extremely obnoxious) witch-hunt against anyone who dares to utter a word in support of free enterprise. It is over used and misused. A "vulgar libertarian" has come to mean anyone who opposes welfare, anyone who opposes regulation, or anyone who thinks any form of limited-liability can be done contractually. It has also come to mean anyone who endorses a "capitalistic" business model (as Brainpolice argued in his most recent Polycentric Order blogpost). Sometimes simply using the word "capitalism" is enough to be labelled a "vulgar libertarian."
It is now the case that nobody can utter more than two or three words without an immediate disclaimer that "we're not in a free market." And even the nonstop disclaimers and clarifications are not enough, as Ben O'Neill quickly learned after his "Private Tyrannies" article. The LLs who use the term also have a tendency to start pointless, exhausting semantics wars, even on forums where everyone already agrees on what the terms mean (such as this one).
What is the point to any of this, except to drag down every conversation and make communication impossible? How many times do we have to denounce corporatism? If 384,234,923,785,298,489,395 times is not enough, then why would 384,234,923,785,298,489,396 times make a difference?
Is it really "vulgar libertarianism" that is being objected to, or is it just free market capitalism? Everything seems to point in the direction of the latter.
Cork: Is it really "vulgar libertarianism" that is being objected to, or is it just free market capitalism? Everything seems to point in the direction of the latter.
I'd have to agree. And I don't want to get into those tired arguments, even though I am in one right now, as once again, the dual nature of the supposed support for free markets has been laid bare and found to be contradictory.
The expression "vulgar libertarianism" was invented by communists. To them any material well-being is vulgar. Just ignore them.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
The point is valid that libertarians should be wary of defending the status quo as a knee-jerk reaction to anti-market comments. Some businesspeople profess admiration for libertarianism then turn around and take government money (for infrastructure projects, for example).
That said there's a real problem with trying to extrapolate "how society would be" under a completely free market beyond basic assumptions. IMO.
Do we really have to do this again?
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Nick Ricci:The point is valid that libertarians should be wary of defending the status quo as a knee-jerk reaction to anti-market comments. Some businesspeople profess admiration for libertarianism then turn around and take government money (for infrastructure projects, for example).
Under the current system you have no choice but to take government money to survive. Government has so much money.
Nick Ricci: The point is valid that libertarians should be wary of defending the status quo as a knee-jerk reaction to anti-market comments. Some businesspeople profess admiration for libertarianism then turn around and take government money (for infrastructure projects, for example). That said there's a real problem with trying to extrapolate "how society would be" under a completely free market beyond basic assumptions. IMO.
This is a free market. The question you might want to consider is: What does the government provide in the exchange(s)?
I really don't care about the witch hunt for Vulgar Libertarians or who is more Libertarian/Anarchist that me. It's all major BS.
Nick. B: I really don't care about the witch hunt for Vulgar Libertarians or who is more Libertarian/Anarchist that me. It's all major BS.
More interestingly, it's major BS raised by a very small, very vocal and very alien minority, which makes one wonder how anyone takes them seriously. Send them back to their hole.
Under the current system you have no choice but to take government money to survive.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Stranger: Nick. B: I really don't care about the witch hunt for Vulgar Libertarians or who is more Libertarian/Anarchist that me. It's all major BS. More interestingly, it's major BS raised by a very small, very vocal and very alien minority, which makes one wonder how anyone takes them seriously. Send them back to their hole.
Sadly because they yap and yap 24/7 and you have no choice but give the baby its bottle by listening.
Cork:Is it really "vulgar libertarianism" that is being objected to, or is it just free market capitalism? Everything seems to point in the direction of the latter.
Of course there are faux libertarians. But the people who sling around the term "vulgar libertarianism" seem to believe that all large capitalistic businesses are "exploitative" and exist only because of the state. Anyone who disagrees with this is deemed a "vulgar libertarian."
Juan: Cork:Is it really "vulgar libertarianism" that is being objected to, or is it just free market capitalism? Everything seems to point in the direction of the latter. You're saying that there are no conservatives/mercantilists who pretend to be libertarians and misuse free market rhetoric for their own purposes...? You're too naive...Maybe mutualists see "vulgar libertarians" everywhere. But that doesn't mean that all faux libertarians are figments of their imagination...
I can't blame Cork for being sick of the discussion. The whole thing has become overblown and you can't help but feel after awhile just saying "*@#& it" and storm off and be skeptical. Also I think you would agree with me that there also Vulgar Libertarians in the socialist Libertarian circles as well, wouldn't you?
Also I think you would agree with me that there also Vulgar Libertarians in the socialist Libertarian circles as well, wouldn't you?
Juan:Also I think you would agree with me that there also Vulgar Libertarians in the socialist Libertarian circles as well, wouldn't you? You mean people who are state socialists but pretend to be voluntarists ?
Yes, such as Noam Chomsky.
Nick. B: Juan:Also I think you would agree with me that there also Vulgar Libertarians in the socialist Libertarian circles as well, wouldn't you? You mean people who are state socialists but pretend to be voluntarists ? Yes, such as Noam Chomsky.
Definitely. "Vulgar liberalism" is the word that Carson uses, but I prefer "vulgar collectivist".
Juan:Under the current system you have no choice but to take government money to survive. Lie.
You certainly have to use government money.
I can understand the need to adapt to the system, but to be taken seriously you need to be consistent with your ideals.
If you live in a totalitarian country it makes a lot of sense to join the Party and climb through the ranks, but that's probably not how you'll change things.
Who cares about a few hippie losers?
Mutualism is just an attempt to base a political philosophy on childish rebellion against authority. Which exactly why the forums of the libertarian left is just the same as all leftist organization, a bunch of young white males in their 20s and 30s who don't have a job, a life or any friends complaining about how they feel oppressed by the capitalist system, meanwhile pretending to be radical.
On the other hand the right libertarians are actually getting things done.
So a message to the left libertarians: fuck off, take a shower, lay off the joints and get a job.
As for the term vulgar libertarian. It's a joke, it's just used to attack the capitalist social hierarchy that the leftists unfortunately find themselves at the bottom of. Nobody should care about a small vocal minority that has never, and will never, acheive anything. At the end of the day when the state collapses they'll still be trading weed for carrots and claiming that it was their doing, when the family and church rise up in place of the state they'll be crying for a new state to get rid of them.
Let the pseudo-intellectuals like Carson be pseudo-intellectuals.
(By the way, this isn't aimed at all left-libertarians, just the Carsonoids).
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Giles
(1) It doesn't matter what someone does so long as they are non-aggressive
(2) These people are fighting the state and thus, more on our side that against us
(3) We agree that there is a huge amount of distortion due to the state, and that many of the people who are rich did NOT get their money through honest means
(4) It worries me that family and church will "rise up in place of the state", surely you don't mean they will arrogate for themselves a monopoly on violence?
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Thedesolateone:(4) It worries me that family and church will "rise up in place of the state", surely you don't mean they will arrogate for themselves a monopoly on violence?
No, that's clearly not what I mean.
GilesStratton: Thedesolateone:(4) It worries me that family and church will "rise up in place of the state", surely you don't mean they will arrogate for themselves a monopoly on violence? No, that's clearly not what I mean.
GilesStratton: Who cares about a few hippie losers? Mutualism is just an attempt to base a political philosophy on childish rebellion against authority. Which exactly why the forums of the libertarian left is just the same as all leftist organization, a bunch of young white males in their 20s and 30s who don't have a job, a life or any friends complaining about how they feel oppressed by the capitalist system, meanwhile pretending to be radical. On the other hand the right libertarians are actually getting things done. So a message to the left libertarians: fuck off, take a shower, lay off the joints and get a job. As for the term vulgar libertarian. It's a joke, it's just used to attack the capitalist social hierarchy that the leftists unfortunately find themselves at the bottom of. Nobody should care about a small vocal minority that has never, and will never, acheive anything. At the end of the day when the state collapses they'll still be trading weed for carrots and claiming that it was their doing, when the family and church rise up in place of the state they'll be crying for a new state to get rid of them. Let the pseudo-intellectuals like Carson be pseudo-intellectuals. (By the way, this isn't aimed at all left-libertarians, just the Carsonoids).
I consider you a vulgar libertarian because you use a lot of curse words and anger like bad comedians. Manners and gentlemanly language characterizes the 'civilized libertarian'.
Thedesolateone: family and church will "rise up in place of the state"
family and church will "rise up in place of the state"
Fundamentalist Christians oppose the state because it's against the church and also because they're worried about the precious black families lost to welfare and crappy public schooling. Hence, their belief the church needs to rise up before Christ returns. The earth being almost 6000 years old, it's about time for him to come around again.
John Ess:I consider you a vulgar libertarian because you use a lot of curse words and anger like bad comedians. Manners and gentlemanly language characterizes the 'civilized libertarian'.
Now, now, words like civilized make you look like some sort of racist.
Cork: Of course there are faux libertarians. But the people who sling around the term "vulgar libertarianism" seem to believe that all large capitalistic businesses are "exploitative" and exist only because of the state. Anyone who disagrees with this is deemed a "vulgar libertarian."
It's fairly easy to indentify who they are. They are the people who liked one book by Rothbard written during his hippie phase and hate absolutely everything else published by any Austrian economists, including Rothbard.
Juan:I take it that's a joke ? Meaning one must literally use fiat money to pay for one's bills even if one earned the money honestly ? If on the other hand what Stranger means is that ppl have no choice but to work as a military contractor, or have no choice but to work for goldman sachs, etc, then what Stranger says is an outright lie. A typical "vulgar libertarian" defense of corporatism. haha.
Yes I meant it as a joke in that context, but what I really wanted to do is see if Stranger could clarify his statement a bit because it was a bit vague
Stranger: Cork: Of course there are faux libertarians. But the people who sling around the term "vulgar libertarianism" seem to believe that all large capitalistic businesses are "exploitative" and exist only because of the state. Anyone who disagrees with this is deemed a "vulgar libertarian." It's fairly easy to indentify who they are. They are the people who liked one book by Rothbard written during his hippie phase and hate absolutely everything else published by any Austrian economists, including Rothbard.
You say hate as if it is personal to you, Rothbard, or some economist. Or economics is aesthetics. I don't understand this reactionary view.
If the Austrian's were all wrong, I would still have the same views I do now. In fact, I rarely read Austrian economics at all. My opinion is not based but is helped by some (but not all) of them. It's not a big deal.
You can dregde up all the accounts and allegations of Wal-Mart working with zoning commissions, and Exxon buying up alternative energy patents and say, "Zomg Vularg Libertarian to the man who defends the capitalists". But the fact is at the end of the day, corporations et al. are voluntary and market institutions, and consumers engage in market activity. We shouldn't be ashamed to defend humans who engage in economic action, to seek profit and value.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
fezwhatley: You can dregde up all the accounts and allegations of Wal-Mart working with zoning commissions, and Exxon buying up alternative energy patents and say, "Zomg Vularg Libertarian to the man who defends the capitalists". But the fact is at the end of the day, corporations et al. are voluntary and market institutions, and consumers engage in market activity. We shouldn't be ashamed to defend humans who engage in economic action, to seek profit and value.
I'm not coming at this with a "what if". Your statement here shows Wal-Mart and Exxon not competing in the free market during these exchanges. These exchanges you explained are with "zoning commissions" and "patents" which thereby are exchanges involving a criminal entity called State. Are they not therefore co-conspirators in the crime? And yes, I'm sure I'm a co-conspirator in this crime too. But do I want to be? No. Does Wal-mart and Exxon? I don't know. Is the difference of desire measured by awareness in crime? Not always. Surely a criminal is aware of the crime (not always), but does it anyways.
fezwhatley:You can dregde up all the accounts and allegations of Wal-Mart working with zoning commissions, and Exxon buying up alternative energy patents and say, "Zomg Vularg Libertarian to the man who defends the capitalists". But the fact is at the end of the day, corporations et al. are voluntary and market institutions, and consumers engage in market activity. We shouldn't be ashamed to defend humans who engage in economic action, to seek profit and value.
But the entire point of the left-libertarian critique of big business and/or corporations is that they aren't fully voluntary market institutions. This point can be argued, but merely asserting otherwise doesn't do anything.
They are as volantary as they can possibly be, to the largest extent. shit, everyone is here is vulgar, we all demand federal reserve notes therefor we support the central bank rite? No, it's a red herring
Sadly enough, i'd say by a pretty big minority, voire the majority; and not only from the left... Then again, it is uninformed BS; using straigh dismissal of alternative ideas, not to have to get engaged into arguments on the substance.
wombatron:big business and/or corporations
Which is it now? Big business or corporations? The two are different, you know that.
fezwhatley:They are as volantary as they can possibly be, to the largest extent.
Be more specific. Is Walmart as voluntary as it can possibly be? Perhaps. But what about Boeing? Or Blackwater? Or AIG? As these voluntary institutions. Big business in the United States is heavily influenced by the state, and vice versa, especially in the financial and healthcare industries and the military-industrial complex.
fezwhatley:shit, everyone is here is vulgar, we all demand federal reserve notes therefor we support the central bank rite? No, it's a red herring
And that exempts big business from colluding with the state... how?
GilesStratton:Which is it now? Big business or corporations? The two are different, you know that.
That's why I made the distinction. There are 2 different LL critiques, that of big business and that of the corporate form specifically, that often get conflated.
But the entire point of the left-libertarian critique of big business and/or corporations is that they aren't fully voluntary market institutions.