Stranger: Brainpolice: How can someone actually be proud of misusing free market theory to be an apologist for corporatism and the current distribution of property titles? Rothbard most certainly was not a vulgar libertarian, as he made quite clear in his property theory in The Ethics of Liberty. I don't consider Rothbard more important than my vulgar teachers Mises, Hayek and Hoppe. And being vulgar, I get to curse a lot. Bitches!
Brainpolice: How can someone actually be proud of misusing free market theory to be an apologist for corporatism and the current distribution of property titles? Rothbard most certainly was not a vulgar libertarian, as he made quite clear in his property theory in The Ethics of Liberty.
How can someone actually be proud of misusing free market theory to be an apologist for corporatism and the current distribution of property titles? Rothbard most certainly was not a vulgar libertarian, as he made quite clear in his property theory in The Ethics of Liberty.
I don't consider Rothbard more important than my vulgar teachers Mises, Hayek and Hoppe. And being vulgar, I get to curse a lot. Bitches!
That's not what the term "vulgar libertarian" means. The word vulgar isn't to be taken literally.
So a minarchist, a neo-liberal and a closet monarchist are on par with Rothbard? Interesting.
So you see no problem with defending the current distribution of property titles and big buisiness across the board? That's what vulgar libertarianism does - in the name of "the free market".
This is getting somewhat frustrating - what is the basis for assuming Hoppe is a closet monarchist? Neither his ethical nor his economic analysis would allow for it. He doesn't even believe it's possible to restore monarchy.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: This is getting somewhat frustrating
This is getting somewhat frustrating
I agree. I would like some clarity on the idea of "distribution of property titles" in the context you're using it here.
JohnSchreimann: Jon Irenicus: This is getting somewhat frustrating I agree. I would like some clarity on the idea of "distribution of property titles" in the context you're using it here.
Do you believe that all currently existing titles to property that are legally recognized as "private" are actually legitimate? Or has the state's legal construction and intervention actually warped private property so that not all currently existing "private property" titles are legitimate? Is the current distribution of "private property" in perfect alignment with the libertarian theory of justice in property aquisition, or is some portion of it actually stolen or granted as a legal privilege? That's the context I'm talking about.
So you'd have "progressive" weinies taking pot shots at Ron with their various cliches... like he wants to do "Shock Capitalism" like Pinochet... he wants to steal your public bussing system and our "beloved" postal service... he wants to make families starve to death...and he wants to end (and I kid you not) "our patriotic income tax" et al.
They didn't whine about him being allegedly racist &c.?
Well, how could I tell if I am correct or not? And what is the alternative to thinking that people are entitled to such things (besides just to say that they are not)?
Well I pretty much agree with BP on what characterizes a vulgar libertarian. You could say virtually anyone from Cato is a vulgar libertarian (e.g. Virginia Postrel.)
JohnSchreimann: Well, how could I tell if I am correct or not? And what is the alternative to thinking that people are entitled to such things (besides just to say that they are not)?
What's in question is not whether or not people are entitled to private property. What's in question is whether or not all currently existing claims and legal titles to ownership are legitimate according to libertarian theory.
Allow Rothbard to illustrate:
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nine.asp
"Thus, we cannot simply say that the great axiomatic moral rule of the libertarian society is the protection of property rights, period. For the criminal has no natural right whatever to the retention of property that he has stolen; the aggressor has no right to claim any property that he has acquired by aggression. Therefore, we must modify or rather clarify the basic rule of the libertarian society to say that no one has the right to aggress against the legitimate or just property of another.
In short, we cannot simply talk of defense of “property rights” or of “private property” per se. For if we do so, we are in grave danger of defending the “property right” of a criminal aggressor—in fact, we logically must do so. We may therefore only speak of just property or legitimate property or perhaps “natural property.” And this means that, in concrete cases, we must decide whether any single given act of violence is aggressive or defensive: e.g., whether it is a case of a criminal robbing a victim, or of a victim trying to repossess his property.
Another vital implication of this way of looking at the world is to invalidate totally the utilitarian way of looking at property rights and therefore of looking at the free market. For the utilitarian, who has no conception, let alone theory, of justice, must fall back on the pragmatic, ad hoc view that all titles to private property currently existing at any time or place must be treated as valid and accepted as worthy of defense against violation. This, in fact, is the way utilitarian free-market economists invariably treat the question of property rights. Note, however, that the utilitarian has managed to smuggle into his discussion an unexamined ethic: that all goods “now” (the time and place at which the discussion occurs) considered private property must be accepted and defended as such. In practice, this means that all private property titles designated by any existing government (which has everywhere seized the monopoly of defining titles to property) must be accepted as such. This is an ethic that is blind to all considerations of justice, and, pushed to its logical conclusion, must also defend every criminal in the property that he has managed to expropriate. We conclude that the utilitarian’s simply praising a free market based upon all existing property titles is invalid and ethically nihilistic."
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ten.asp
"In the present world, when most land areas have been pressed into service, the invalidating of land titles from never being used would not be very extensive. More important nowadays would be invalidating a land title because of a continuing seizure of landed property by aggressors. We have already discussed the case of Jones’s ancestors having seized a parcel of land from the Smith family, while Jones uses and owns the land in the present day. But suppose that centuries ago, Smith was tilling the soil and therefore legitimately owning the land; and then that Jones came along and settled down near Smith, claiming by use of coercion the title to Smith’s land, and extracting payment or “rent” from Smith for the privilege of continuing to till the soil. Suppose that now, centuries later, Smith’s descendants (or, for that matter, other unrelated families) are now tilling the soil, while Jones’s descendants, or those who purchased their claims, still continue to exact tribute from the modern tillers. Where is the true property right in such a case? It should be clear that here, just as in the case of slavery, we have a case of continuing aggression against the true owners—the true possessors—of the land, the tillers, or peasants, by the illegitimate owner, the man whose original and continuing claim to the land and its fruits has come from coercion and violence. Just as the original Jones was a continuing aggressor against the original Smith, so the modern peasants are being aggressed against by the modern holder of the Jones-derived land title. In this case of what we might call “feudalism” or “land monopoly,” the feudal or monopolist landlords have no legitimate claim to the property. The current “tenants,” or peasants, should be the absolute owners of their property, and, as in the case of slavery, the land titles should be transferred to the peasants, without compensation to the monopoly landlords."
Brainpolice: That's not what the term "vulgar libertarian" means. The word vulgar isn't to be taken literally. So a minarchist, a neo-liberal and a closet monarchist are on par with Rothbard? Interesting. So you see no problem with defending the current distribution of property titles and big buisiness across the board? That's what vulgar libertarianism does - in the name of "the free market".
No, why, does it bother you?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: Brainpolice: That's not what the term "vulgar libertarian" means. The word vulgar isn't to be taken literally. So a minarchist, a neo-liberal and a closet monarchist are on par with Rothbard? Interesting. So you see no problem with defending the current distribution of property titles and big buisiness across the board? That's what vulgar libertarianism does - in the name of "the free market". No, why, does it bother you?
Because that functions to defend the status quo, and the status quo is unjust. Because not all currently existing legally recognized titles to property are just. Because the current distribution of property is the result of intervention and redistribution by the state. Because big buisiness in the absolute is not just. Because big buisiness is in large part in collusion with big government. Because we don't currently have a free market, and thus to defend what we have in the name of the free market is absurd and functions to enable the political left's confusion on the matter, since they will react by blaming bad current conditions on the free market. Because what you would be defending is not a free market but corporatism or neo-mercantalism. Because it reinforces the perception that libertarians are merely apologists for corporatism, and actually makes it true. Is that a satisfactory enough answer?
Why wouldn't it bother any libertarian?
You know that envy is a sin.
It doesn't bother me that other people have things that I don't. Liberty is about what we can do, not what we have.
All states deprive their own people of their own wealth.
Why can't a person be laissiz-faire and minarchist or monarchist, or new-lib, or whatever they wish to call themselves.
Fact is, one guy tellin' a mob of pigs they are abusers of violent force, just doesn't win. Somehow we can find some mutualism in ideologies when it comes to the aproach of what is the role of the state if any?
Etatism sucks!
And on topic of this thread. I dig revolution in perpituity.
Individualism Rocks
Stranger: You know that envy is a sin. It doesn't bother me that other people have things that I don't. Liberty is about what we can do, not what we have.
This isn't about envy, it's about justice in property aquisition. You know, the labor theory of property and homesteading theory? What a concept! The fact that you're miscontrueing the libertarian theory of justice in property as some kind of socialistic envy is absurd. That's a gross mischaracterization of the position being taken here and I would hope that libertarians know better than that.
You're not understanding the point at all. What's being taken issue with is not that other people have things that you don't. What's being taken issue with is that other people have stolen goods. What's being taken issue with is that certain people have special legal privileges. What's being taken issue with is the redistribution of the fruits of people's labor. What's being taken issue with is corporatism and the misuse of free market theory to defend it. What's being taken issue with is land monopoly and feudalism. What's being taken issue with is patronage between buisiness and state and corporate welfare. What don't you understand about this?
To defend the free market is not to defend all currently existing and legally recognized property titles, the concentration of private power and big buisiness across the board. Free market does not equal pro-corporate or pro-aristocracy per se. Free market does not equal status quo. Free market is an independant standard to hold status quo up to that can only come into existance once status quo is abolished. Comprehende?
To all those who think that this is just unnecessary infighting, consider how important it really is to make these things clear. This is not a petty squabble among peers. It is a fundamental disagreement that cannot be reconciled. This is something that has to be clarified and is vital to a comprehensive communication of libertarianism. It's the difference between using libertarianism as a mask or an apologetic device for something else and actually being consistant with the implications of libertarianism. It's the difference between justice and a cold and dry utilitarian analysis that is divorced from any concept of justice.
Kevin Carson's criticism of what he has dubbed "vulgar libertarianism" is merely an extension of or elaboration upon Murray Rothbard's criticism of utilitarian market economics in isolation. It is an important criticism that should not be just brushed aside entirely, even if it can be found as being partially flawed. It should be taken very seriously. It's not a joke or some kind of game of smoke and mirrors.
Wait man; your being a wee bit absolutist.
The physiocrats were monarchists, so was Aristotle. All folks see things differently, no matter what the intelectuals think they can comand of them. People act selfishly, in that we all must act, or fill needs. What your thesis is missing is that division of labour makes things rock harder. Some think that a social order is a must. And such natural social order can be expressed through the market, or the proccess of exchange.
I find it logically acceptable for someone to be for total free exchange, and also be for a system of say common law. Some folks would say that the common law can't exist without social order, how 'bout y'all?
Bank Run: Wait man; your being a wee bit absolutist. The physiocrats were monarchists, so was Aristotle. All folks see things differently, no matter what the intelectuals think they can comand of them. People act selfishly, in that we all must act, or fill needs. What your thesis is missing is that division of labour makes things rock harder. Some think that a social order is a must. And such natural social order can be expressed through the market, or the proccess of exchange. I find it logically acceptable for someone to be for total free exchange, and also be for a system of say common law. Some folks would say that the common law can't exist without social order, how 'bout y'all?
That's not what's at issue here. The concept of "natural order" should not be used to defend whatever currently exists (that's conservatism), especially for a liberation movement which is supposed to advocate change. What's at issue here is the use of free market concepts as an apologetic device for a non-free-market set of conditions. That's the problem of vulgar libertarianism and conservatism in general.
Well it's the idea of be for no rule or be no liberwhackian. I like how market actions can prevail, like logic. Just because free market actions reign, does not say that any market is free. I agree with you calling any past system aside from cursoe economics free is vulgar intellectually. I like to use the word vulgar how most see it and that is visceral, and profane.
At the kids table: I teach my boy if he uses words the right way it is dandy. Like you can say, female dog, unmarried child, and damn you stink like hell, but not damn you to hell. As long as the boy uses the words as intended, O.K.
Thanks, for getting the idea of self rule, and the history of thought, like your Lockean term, 'the fruits of labour', folks build on others thoughts.
I detest the god complex, anyone else?
And sorry in general, I am big tent. As long as one doesn't wish to go about ballin up folks and believes in liberty, than you are Libertarian
Block~Rothbard and Big Tent Libertarianism
I dislike elitism.
I hope you have a good day.
Well to anyone who thinks the criticism is unique to Carson, Hoppe essentially characterizes the current rich as no more than statist parasites in the majority in DTGTF, and thus as not representative of a free-market phenomenon. An opposition to vulgar libertarianism necessarily follows from the fact that noncontractors, non-homesteaders &c. are nothing but parasites whose wealth was acquired at the expense of others. Reisman also attributes much of the extreme wealth inequality to the financial system. So if anything, vulgar libertarianism is a repudiation of most of Austrianism.
Brainpolice: JohnSchreimann: Well, how could I tell if I am correct or not? And what is the alternative to thinking that people are entitled to such things (besides just to say that they are not)? What's in question is not whether or not people are entitled to private property. What's in question is whether or not all currently existing claims and legal titles to ownership are legitimate according to libertarian theory.
I don't know of any libertarians who think all property titles are legitimate. Most people today do not believe thieves need to have their property protected. Most agree that the state is responsible for some having more than they should (all aspects of the welfare state).
What I don't understand is the insistence that we must be suspicious of all property titles or wealth that exists currently. As if successful corporations and individuals don't deserve any credit and are some how immoral -- that a suspicion is necessary. When they can do moral as well as immoral things like anyone else. And what do we do in a just society to reverse the actions of the state supposedly giving some too much or protecting property illegitimately... trace back where it really belongs and give it to someone else? That seems like too confusing an operation.
JohnSchreimann:And what do we do in a just society to reverse the actions of the state supposedly giving some too much or protecting property illegitimately... trace back where it really belongs and give it to someone else? That seems like too confusing an operation.
It is also an operation that violates a fundamental principle of justice.
Stranger: BrainPolice: So you see no problem with defending the current distribution of property titles and big buisiness across the board? That's what vulgar libertarianism does - in the name of "the free market". No, why, does it bother you?
BrainPolice: So you see no problem with defending the current distribution of property titles and big buisiness across the board? That's what vulgar libertarianism does - in the name of "the free market".
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."
JohnSchreimann: What I don't understand is the insistence that we must be suspicious of all property titles or wealth that exists currently.
I don't know of any libertarians who think all property titles are legitimate.
The problem is that many libertarians start their analysis as if this is the case.
Most people today do not believe thieves need to have their property protected.
And yet this is implicit in their defense of both the state and various so-called "private" entities.
What I don't understand is the insistence that we must be suspicious of all property titles or wealth that exists currently.
That's not precisely the contention and I'm getting tired of having to reiterate the point over and over again.
And what do we do in a just society to reverse the actions of the state supposedly giving some too much or protecting property illegitimately... trace back where it really belongs and give it to someone else? That seems like too confusing an operation.
The alternative is to accept and defend the status quo.
I'm not for subsidies or regulations.
My question was how do we reverse any problem of illegitimate ownership (or property titles) or understand where it should be instead? I genuinely would likely to know.
JohnSchreimann: I'm not for subsidies or regulations. My question was how do we reverse any problem of illegitimate ownership (or property titles) or understand where it should be instead? I genuinely would likely to know.
Rothbard outlines the answer to that question quite well in "The Ethics of Liberty".
It's called Revolutionary Redistribution.
Here's a rough draft of an ALL pamphlet I'm working on. There are two sides, the first is linked to "rough" and the second to "draft."
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Brainpolice: Rothbard outlines the answer to that question quite well in "The Ethics of Liberty".
But your position seems to be opposed to Rothbard's at every point...
Paul: Brainpolice: Rothbard outlines the answer to that question quite well in "The Ethics of Liberty". But your position seems to be opposed to Rothbard's at every point...
How so? As far as I can tell, it's identical. I even directly quoted him from the book in this thread to back myself up on this. Rothbard was not a defender of the status quo in property titles and was often mischaracterized by conservatives as a red for advocating positions on land reform and the transferance of state property into private hands that superficially can be misread as socialistic. All I'm really doing is reinterating Rothbard's own position. If you don't like it, form a counter-arguement to the principles espoused in TEOL. Your gripe is with Rothbard (or at least 60's and 70's Rothbard - his most radical years).
Not all stolen goods are worth recovering.
Redistribution will result in even greater destruction of property in order to retroactively apply libertarian laws that people didn't know they were supposed to follow. That is why it is wrong morally and ethically.
There is nothing that corporations are doing that is immoral. They are simply following the rules and their self-interest. There is a difference between setting the rules and suffering them.
But...but... Think of the companies! They could starve to death! Poor them!
"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
So then some thieves and owners of stolen goods should be allowed to keep their stolen goods? And which particular people should be able to keep stolen goods, and what gives them the right to be thieves and not others? Doesn't that seem rather arbitrary? And should the state therefore be able to hold onto to some stolen goods? That's quite a warped stand of justice you've got there. I haven't read that one in any libertarian work. It would seem to run counter to the whole point.
What is wrong morally and ethically is theft. Restitution to the victims (which you disingenously want to characterize as a socialist redistribution scheme) is not wrong, it is the very essence of justice.
There is nothing that corporations are doing that is immoral.
Halliburton and Blackwater, and other corporations that are in patonrage with the state and recieving stolen money, are perfectly moral? According to what libertarian theory? Could've fooled me!
They are simply following the rules and their self-interest.
We're not supposed to blindly accept whatever "the rules" happen to be here, remember?
Nitroadict: But...but... Think of the companies! They could starve to death! Poor them!
Haha. If a company cannot sustain itself through purely market means, then it deserves the detonation that it gets. Isn't that kind of how the free market is supposed to work anyways? The inefficient buisinesses are weeded out by free competition.
Brainpolice: How so? As far as I can tell, it's identical. I even directly quoted him from the book in this thread to back myself up on this. Rothbard was not a defender of the status quo in property titles
How so? As far as I can tell, it's identical. I even directly quoted him from the book in this thread to back myself up on this. Rothbard was not a defender of the status quo in property titles
Depends what you mean by "property titles". He absolutely was a defender of the status quo ante for (most) non-state property, which appears to me to be what you lefty types are mostly concerned with in these rants (and otherwise I can't see what you're arguing against - it doesn't even have meaning to talk about "defending the status quo" when it comes to state-"owned" property if you're talking about doing away with the state! How can a non-existent entity own anything?)
Brainpolice: and was often mischaracterized by conservatives as a red for advocating positions on land reform and the transferance of state property into private hands
and was often mischaracterized by conservatives as a red for advocating positions on land reform and the transferance of state property into private hands
"State property"
Brainpolice:So then some thieves and owners of stolen goods should be allowed to keep their stolen goods?
Hey if you want to try to take their stuff, good luck.
Brainpolice:Haha. If a company cannot sustain itself through purely market means, then it deserves the detonation that it gets. Isn't that kind of how the free market is supposed to work anyways? The inefficient buisinesses are weeded out by free competition.
There is no pure market. And hence, it is impossible to survive by purely market means.
People who run businesses to put food on the table deal with reality, not theory.
If I don't rob you, someone else will. Give me your wallet.