who/what does Vulgar or big libertarians mean?

Miscellaneous General
81

Re: capitalism.

It’s important to note that among the left (I mean socialist/democrats/etc.) that an economy that is not completely controlled is “capitalist” – therefore all things that fail are blamed on “capitalism.” For instance, the current mess on Wall Street is the failure of capitalism and those that don’t act quick enough to get the bail outs are just “stubborn capitalists” (or worse: erroneously compared to the “free market” Hoover who “did nothing”).

In this instance, it’s important to recognize that capitalism only means that capital is accumulated somewhere. Even Milton Friedman said that capitalism is not a sufficient condition for freedom or free markets. And that the soviet union could be considered capitalist at some level (not just the black market, but that the state owned majority of it). I don’t think this is a idiosyncracy of brainpolice’s – but a real economic distinction. Hell, many countries in the world are not easily defineable as one economic system or another. What brainpolice calls the free market is what Milton Friedman called “competitive capitalism” – a way of differentiating between economic models dealing with “capital.” Of course, both are capitalism… but it does no good to discussion for two people who agree that capital should be accumulated somewhere to simply say that they agree. That is not enough or really that meaningful. If I were ever in a conversation with someone who believes absolutely no capital should be owned by anyone, then I would not bother with such an argument.

82

The majority of people at this website.

No at all. I’m making constructive criticisms and being strawmanned.

No, Capitalism, even as Mises defines it, is a system of state protection of property. Before Rothbard, noone ever used the term capitalism to refer to statelessness, the existance of the state in the equation is assumed. Furthermore, the “anti-capitalist” mindset held by state-socialists in particular is to blame free markets for the effects of capitalism, which I am not doing. The vulgar libertarian mindsent is the mirror image of this “anti-capitalist” mindset you refer to: it’s the mindset of defending the effects of currently existing statist capitalism in the name of free markets. Notice that both the vulgar libertarians and these “anti-capitalists” make the same mistake from a different angle: they selectively assume that there is a free market.

Conservatives, left-liberals and vulgar libertarians alike do all the time.

You’re confused. I’m not agreeing with progressive liberals. Progressive liberals blame free markets for the effects of statist capitalism. Vulgar libertarians defend the effects of statist capitalism in the name of free markets. I disagree with both. You’re failing to see the middle ground at play here.

ONCE AGAIN THIS IS A STRAW MAN! Noone is catering to progressive liberals. I hate progressive liberals and get into heated debates with them all the time.

I don’t support IWW and anarcho-syndicalists I’ve encountered are hostile to me and think I’m a “rightist” actually. Jeez. I clash with them just as much as I clash with righties like you. While you’re busy strawmanning me as some kind of state-socialist, they’re busy strawmanning me as a conservative. Could it be that I’m an individual and refuse to buy into either of your bullshit?

83

No you don’t. You bow down to the state and cave into the threat ofits violence. You compromise your theoretical and philosophical positions daily, in order to survive. The reality is, you compromise. And people compromise on the immigration issue. Because not everyone is a theorist like you. Not everyone gets off on philosophy. In fact, very few do. And of those who do, they don’t even live out their philosophy, because the state forces them to compromise or die.

So please don’t tell me reality doesn’t matter. On it’s face, your argument fails.

Why think of them? Say their names? Who are they?

You mean, I want you to put up or shut up. Either admit you’re referring to an artificial or theoretical construct, or actually give an example of that which you refer to.

This isn’t about personalizing. You’re creating a strawman to escape having to clearly define and articulate your position with a living breathing (or even dead) example.

“It’s about ideas and their application” Oh my, what do you plan to produce in a free society? Hot air?

I simply simplified what you wrote down to it’s pure essence. Note, you attack me and my argument, but you do not offer a correction. Because I nailed it.

Ad homs are a waste of time. I am playing word games. You refuse to leave me alone, so I will waste your time, attack your arguments where they are weakest to undermine your credibility and basically have a good laugh about it. I don’t know if you caught it earlier, but I am capable of changing the game and victory conditions. There is no way you can win, without giving up because I have nothing to lose, and will play forever.

I hope that I am isolated from most of your discussions. It’s very rare that you post anything that actually means anything. This is why the left goes nowhere. Because it’s a bunch of guys sitting around talking and thinking about talking and thinking.

It’s not a big deal that you continue to interrelate false premises. I think almost anyone can do that.

Wow. The first thing I really agree with. I don’t want to define things as left and right. I just want to get to the good part where we are all free and follow the NAP.

This sounds like you are quitting. Winning never felt so hollow.

84

Maybe we’re all on to you.

Henry Rollins has a theory of the lowest common denominator. If everyone thinks you are full of BS, maybe you are.

85

I’m sorry, this “you’re just theory” attitude is a misnomer and a disingenous strategy that people use to try to claim the high ground in debates by acting as if they are more “grounded” then someone else. Everyone has theories, you are not theoryless, and you have no more claim to realism then anyone else. I believe the conflict here is between radicalism and pragmatism. You’re a pragmatist, I’m a radical. I don’t make compromises that aschew the principle. Achewing your principles doesnt mean you’re realistic, it means you’re spineless.

No, you demonstrated that you don’t understand the concepts and how they relate, and proceeded to straw man men based on your misunderstanding.

This isn’t a game. These are serious ideas with real consequences. Stop playing games.

This repeated accusation that people are just all talk is both disingenous and irrelevant to the discussion. It’s also hypocritical, since you seem to spend plenty of time sitting and typing here yourself.

There are no winners here. You’re simply trolling. Stop it. Join the adults in adult discussion.

86

Not at all. I’m pointing out the difference between theory and practice.

Strawman

You’re a radical? How are you radical? Have you renounced your citizenship? Have you stopped paying taxes? Do you refuse to follow city, state and federal laws?

You don’t know me to accuse me of being a pragmatist, although I will admit, that I do make a lot of pragmatic compromises in order to stay alive. That said, to claim that you do not, or that you are more radical is just nonsense. You might have more radical ideas (unlikely) but there is no evidence that you live a radical lifestyle.

Yes. Internetz. Serius Bizness.

I might be a hypocrite. But in order for me to be a hypocrite, you would have to accept my point that talk is just talk. So what do you say?

I’d love to read your definition of adult. Does it include financial independence?

87

The typical way in which the dichotomy is used is a misnomer because if it doesn’t work in practise, then that’s an indication that the theory is wrong. Hence, common notions such as “communism is an excellent theory but just doesn’t work in practise” don’t make sense. It also doesn’t make sense to talk about the “practise” of anything without referance to a corresponding theory. Everyone has theories and it is disingenous to speak as if one does not have one and/or as if not having one is a good thing.

Wow, you’re not doing very good at trolling. That wasn’t a strawman.

I’m talking in terms of ideas. By radical I mean not compromising in a way that aschews a principle in terms of ideas. Not watering down one’s own position to appease populism or dumb utilitarian concerns.

88

I have no idea what you are rambling about. Theories are wonderful, but we compromise on them in practice in order to stay alive.

I know you get off on theorizing, I on the other hand, get off on living. So when we talk about a “real world” problem like illegal immigration into a welfare state, I realize there are theories about never compromising on liberty just because there is a welfare state, but when it hits me in the pocket book, when it changes the composition of my community, and redirects resources from me, while creating increased competition, all artificially spurred by the availability of welfare for illegals, then I have to deal with the reality that either welfare or the illegals HAVE TO GO. Again, this is a compromise. You and I compromise every time we make use of something the state provides with theft and murder from others. We could oppose it. We could be revolutionaries, but we prefer to avoid violence and conflict with a superior (if illegitimate) power.

So theorize away, just understand that you’re a rare breed of person, that gets off on philosophy. The rest of us are trying to survive and get ahead.

Compared to you, I am not very good at trolling.

Right, so basically you’re a radical talker. Whoopity doo.

As far as dumb utilitarian concerns, you compromise. You do what you have to do to survive. I’d like to know how you support yourself. Whether you pay taxes. If you stop at red lights.

It’s fun and games for kids to rage against the machine, I approve of it. But let’s not blow this out of proportion. You call people who think state and corporations are somehow intertwined, vulgar libertarians, and yet you have no problem using guitar equipment produced by corporations, or using electricity provided by corporations.

Seems to me, the radicalism of speech and thought doesn’t always translate into radical action and radical lifestyle.

89

Eh?

90

I don’t really see why Hoppe has anything to do with this “libertarian conservative fusionism” you speak about other than the fact that he’s very much a cultural conservative, which, if you ask me goes hand in hand with libertarianism. Unless of course you’re talking about state enforced immigration control, on which I agree with you.

Personally I think this argument is silly. I do think that LS raises some good issues regarding the libertarian left (although that’s a stupid distinction if you ask me, libertarians are all on the left, not that it matters). On the other hand I don’t think he realises the validity of the term “vulgar libertarian” when correctly applied.

91

Did the point just completely go over your head or are you purposefully evading it?

That’s a utilitarian viewpoint. I’m not a utilitarian. I’m not going to endorse you stealing from me just because you’re hungry.

It does not logically follow that one should hence endorse state enforced borders and eschew a principle. The solution would be to oppose welfare. Otherwise, one ceases to be a libertarian at least with regaurd to that particular issue. I could use the exact same rationalization method you are to endorse practically any state intervention. You’re using arbitrary pragmatism to rationalize selectively falling back to authoritarianism on specific issues. I favor consistancy with regaurd to what one advocates, not watering down one’s position out of utilitarian concerns. Furthmore, your whole diatrabe here is based on a theory, an incorrect one that externalizes blame for the effects of the welfare state onto illegal immigrants. You are not detached from a theory here, and your theory is wrong. Also the “practise” ultimately advocated contradicts other theoretical elements you claim to adhere to, such as the NAP. You’re essentialy saying that the NAP, in this instance, should be broken out of utilitarian concerns. Furthermore, you’re using interventionist thinking by endorsing intervention X as a remedy to the effects created by intervention Y. Your hero Mises’s criticism of interventionism applies to you!

You keep shifting to personalizations when that’s irrelevant to the point. I’m talking about the internal consistancy of ideas. Do you have a concept of ideological consistancy? The fact that I have to explain these things to you is making me feel like an Objectivist.

92

I think you two are shouting past each other – atleast on libertystudent’s end.

Ron Paul a few months ago made the comment that the two major candidates were “for the big corporations” (meaning not for individual liberty, but for corporations that lobby for intervention). And has formed a coalition with those other left-leaning parties for the reason of standing up to the corporatism being pushed by the major parties: particularly the bailouts and the fed transferring wealth via inflation.

This doesn’t then mean that Ron Paul is boycotting all of the corporations that get handouts. It doesn’t mean he’s going into the woods to avoid being a hypocrite, either.

Some of the poorer college student posters here could be helped by “compromising” on the issue of health care towards socialism. Perhaps, rationalizing that since so much intervention has occurred, the state has made health care too expensive for them – to be somewhat helped (in their own case) by free health care. But knowing that this is morally reprehensible and directly supporting violence for their own gain (while hurting others and the system as a whole), should they support socialism? Or support the markets?

93

Oh sure. The henchman calls me the bad guy. j/k

Paul rarely says “big corporations” if at all. He may have said special interests or listed the various “complexes”. The conference was to announce agreement on a 4 point plan, which Nader has spun the FED issue (#4) into anti-corporatism. I assure you, Paul doesn’t conflate corporatism with the FED in his dialog or writing.

Are you trying to talk to me through Ron Paul examples? lol.

It’s not easy is it? Not as cut and dried as BP would have me believe. It’s impossible to live within the state, without participating in either state sanctioned activities, or state sponsored activities. While one may oppose them on principle, it is nearly impossible to avoid contact with the evils of the state.

Unlike BP, I’m not judging people who compromise. I understand it’s a reality we all have to face. We pay our taxes to avoid violence, and our taxes are used to perpetuate violence against others. It’s a bad deal.

But at the same time, I’m not going to criticize people who discuss these compromises, pretending those discussions occur in a vacuum of philosophical or moral integrity.

You’re right about talking past one another. Specifically on the immigration issue, one side is discussing what is, and the other what should be. And while it’s great to have a goal, you also need to take some first steps.

94

And what’s wrong with anti-corporatism? I wasn’t aware that libertarians favored corporatism. I thought they went out of their way to distinguish it from a free market, and hence oppose it.

You’re still not understanding. I’m not talking about this personalized stuff, I’m talking about the internal consistancy of ideas. You’re talking about a completely different thing than I am. I’m talking about consistancy with regaurd to what one advocates in the realm of politics. For example, it would be inconsistant to claim the title of libertarian and proceed to advocate welfare. Likewise, it would be inconsistant to claim the title of libertarian and proceed to advocate state enforced borders. I’m not talking about activism, I’m talking about consistancy with regaurd to ideas.

Actually what’s happening is that you’re functioning as a conservative by endorsing some element of the status quo or pragmatically endorseing a particular state intervention out of pragmatism and I’m calling you out on it, despite your disingenous attempts to claim the mantle of realism. You’re essentially aschewing principle on an issue because of fear of boogeymen. You would probably react similarly to how I am if I made a post endorsing some other state intervention, say, price controls on milk. Luckily, I’m not advocating for any state interventions because I prefer to err on the side of consistancy in this sense.

95

This is one of them here (at around 50 seconds).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez5robAWmu4

96

The point is on my head.

It doesn’t matter what you endorse. You compromise. What you do is divorced from your philosophical positions.

You recently wrote that you oppose both.

I’ll take a libertarian of action over a libertarian of discourse any day. It’s easy to take ideal positions when it costs you nothing to hold those views.

There is nothing arbitrary about it.

I favour free love, ice cream and 3 day weekends for everyone. I won’t water that down either.

Actually, you don’t know where I stand on immigration personally. I’m not an American, and I’m the product of liberal immigration to the West. I will own you on this argument like a classic video game. But I will do it in an immigration thread. I wouldn’t want you to succumb to the “offtopic-ism” I am so guilty of. That wouldn’t be ideologically consistent.

PS, why do you use “Your hero Mises” like it’s an epithet? Not only is it a strawman, it could also be seen as an Ad Hom. What’s your problem with Mises? Anti-Capitalist angst?

I know you are talking about the internal consistency of ideas. I am talking about the consistency of ideas and actions.

You can be as ideologically consistent as you want. I’m sure there are all kinds of pascifists conducting bombing missions, and Christians practicing hate. In the airy fairy world, people can sit around and say “my ideas are consistent” and then levitate as they take another hit from the bong. In the physical world people can say, “my ideas are consistent, but I can’t practice them due to my coerced state!”. You have a consistent anti-state ideology right? Good luck practicing anti-state behaviour and staying out of prison, let alone staying alive. I’ll hazard a guess that you’re not even trying it.

97

For the millionth time, that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about intern consistancy with regaurd to what one advocates, in terms of the content of one’s position. Stop evading this.

It is very arbitrary precisely because the exact same thought process can be used to endorse any other state intervention and aschew a principle in any other context. I can use your exact same line of reasoning to produce any kind of doomsday scenario which leads one to throw away a principle and endorse state intervention.

Ah, so now you disingenously backtrack, when earlier in the thread you clearly implied that you would be willing to pragmatically endorse immigration restriction due to your concerns over the welfare state.

I never said I have a problem with Mises. I was using him against you!

Your attempt to dismiss internal consistancy out of hand as irrelevant is ridiculous. This isn’t irrelevant, it’s the difference between having a wishy-washy position and a clear-cut one. But apparently in your world it’s a sin to take ideas seriously, as if anyone who is concerned about internal consistncy is “floating in the sky” or something. That’s misguided. And you’re deliberately sidetracking from having an actual disussion or debate by personalizing everything. You wouldn’t make it anywhere in a formal debate using such tactics. If you’re unable to have a sensible discussion of ideas, then get out of the ideological kitchen. Stop derailing what could otherwise be a meaningful discussion or debate.

98

Well, I think it is silly. But I guess people can do whatever they want, if I want to be ideologically consistent with the idea of individual liberty.

Me neither. Who did that?

I dunno what you think, but I am pretty sure in a free society, people will be able to duplicate (or at least approximate) the legal structure of a corporation through contract. How that works without government intervention, I don’t know. I guess someone will have to try it so we can find out.

You should change your name from Brainpolice to “InvoluntaryLobotomy”

25,000 characters later… a light goes on.

Hey BP, if you’re paying taxes, and you carry your papers, and you get state welfare, and your education is state subsidized and you travel on state roads, you’re endorsing the status quo, right?

That’s your ridiculous argument in a nutshell.

I don’t know you, but I take a lot of risks for my anti-statism. And I intend to take more.

Talk is cheap. You can oppose all you want from your blogs and youtube videos. There are no consequences.

99

The only thing I think to live consistently anarchistically is not using violence on anyone. And to some degree living with full honesty about your opinions with other people – preventing the people from enslaving you with guilt. And most likely not voting, either.

None of those things are terribly difficult if you are an honest person and realize that really nothing is stopping you. I can’t think of a single person who is forced to use violence on others whether as a career (if military or police, they were not forced) or in order to get services.

In truth, most people do not compromise… which is why anarchism is not a compromise. It’s actually a real and not theoretical system. Most people don’t find violence to be moral. In fact, I would say the future of anarchism depends on the truths people hold right now (whether suppressed or acknowledged). This is also why socialists generally fail in philosophical debate (even without the calculation debate or proof in the downfall of the Soviet Union). How often can they say they disrupt the market, really, with violence to create “egalitarianism”? Virtually never. And everyone is a “socialist” in a socialist society, why use violence at all? The proof of the thing they oppose exists in their own life. It’s much harder for them to prove their point about statism “working” than it is for us to prove anarchism works – anarchism being virtually 99.999999 percent or more of all action.

On corporations, I have no sophisticated opinion re: their realness. I always say that in the market, you don’t support “corporations” – you support the very thing you get via trade. You get food from Pizza Hut. Or ipods from Apple. People in a market really support the existence of the things they pay for. It’s not a personal thing in which we support their staying in business forever. We can’t say that we support working conditions in places we wouldn’t personally work, either. This is sort of Mises’ point about our subjective valuation of these things. It’s apples versus oranges – except the market has millions of different fruits and vegetables. And what drives the economy are the pricing signals that say how resources are allocated.

100

That’s not a scripted argument or speech. It’s a response to a question, and he lumps big corporations in independently of the FED, politicians etc.