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
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools.
Irenicus' Diaries.
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?
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
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?