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.
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 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.
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.
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…
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.”
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?
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.