Freedomain Radio

I'm wondering what the people at FDR think about Kevin Carson and his concept of "vulgar libertarianism".

As I understand it, vulgar libertarianism is the tendency of some libertarians, particularly those closely associated with the political right and even some anarcho-capitalists, who misuse free market theory as an apologetic device to defend currently existing conditions in the economy. They defend unequitable conditions that came about as a consequence of state intervention as if they came about as a consequence of free market means. The vulgar libertarian, in various ways, ends up defending currently existing corporatism in the name of the free market. They defend big buisiness and concentrations of wealth as such irrespective of any concept of justice. They defend legal private property titles as they are regaurdless of any distortion caused bv the state or any privilege and unjust ownership that this may entail. A vulgar libertarian anarcho-capitalist may essentially envision a society that is more or less identical to currently existing society minus the state, which is to say that they think that the outcome of a free market would be dominated by a few large firms and that wage-labor would be the norm to the extent that it is today.

I pretty much agree with this criticism and think that vulgar libertarianism is a very real problem. I actually see this error commited quite frequently at the Mises Institute, which is afterall fairly closely associated with the political right. I am not convinced that corporations, at least as they currently exist or as large and powerful as they current are, would exist in a genuine free market. Nor am I convinced that wage-labor would be as dominant as it currently is, since presumably people would be able to pursue a wider variety of alternatives. I don't like corporations nor am I comfortable with "private" concentrations of power in general. Does this make me a Marxist or a communist of some sort? Most definitely not, and I think that it is highly disingenous to red-bait this viewpoint, which afterall is pretty much perfectly in line with the tradition of American individualist anarchism. And while I'm not really a mutualist myself, I have a lot of respect for mutualists and consider them to be strong allies who I could co-exist with in a free society.

 I think the reason that some libertarians take a wrong stance on "actual existing capitalism" is that they often come across people who have wrong ideas on the market. The fact is that a majority of people in the United States want the state to have its hand, in one way or another, in the economy and/or market. I've personally encountered the argument more than once that "If we take away the government, what's going to stop the corporations from taking over everything?", or some variation of that (or even reduce the size of government, in most cases). The funny thing is that this leads some (the vulgar libertarians) to actually defend corporations with questionable practices like Exxon Mobile, rather than recognize them as part of the problem. I suppose it might be aftershocks of people like Rand saying that Big Business was being "victimized". Along with the military industrial complex being a "myth or worse", of course...it may take a while for libertarianism to disassociate itself with such people.

Thinking that the state is the aggressor against "Big Business" is not entirely true. In fact, there has been more than one instance in American history when the only thing that rescued the holders of capital from the brink of destruction was the state.

Thinking that, if we took away the state, things would continue pretty much the same way that they continue today is insane.

I read about half of your post before I realized it was you, brainpolice :)

I agree, and I would venture to say that vulgar libertarianism is one of the dominant political beliefs today.

Most arguments for agression eventually rests on one belief: that the lack of a state is equivalent to unchecked concentrations of private power.  The term "vulgar libertarian" refers to one who essentially believes that this is both true and ought-to-be.  The vulgar libertarian shares much with the progressive, who also believes the statement to be true, but does not believe that it ought-to-be. The basis of the two philosophies are the same, and so I think vulgar libertarianism can be said to be a foremost component of contemporary politics.

As for the Mises Institute: I think that a few of their guys can function as vulgar libertarians sometimes, but I don't think that their economic analysis is fundamentally flawed.  If you listen to "Fundamentals of Economic Analysis: A Causal-Realist Approach", you'll find that while there is no specific effort made to point out that corporations are extensions of the state, the central principles and the discussion as a whole is very appropriate and can be applied in a Carsonian direction.

My rule of thumb for Mises is: economics, yes-please; politics, no-thank-you.

The most frustrating aspect of vulgar libertarianism is that non-libertarians take it to represent libertarianism as a whole.  It's not hard to convert a vulgar libertarian to non-vulgar libertarianism (though some VLs are prideful and refuse to admit that such a mistake even exists,) but your average leftist is turned away from libertarianism because the vulgar libertarians get all the publicity.  Either that, or they're deliberately given publicity by statists who want to use them as a propaganda tool, to say "Look, freedom is slavery!  Hear it from the advocates of freedom itself!" </conspiracy theory off>

Not A Number:

The most frustrating aspect of vulgar libertarianism is that non-libertarians take it to represent libertarianism as a whole.

First of all, to what BP said, I can only offer this.  WORD!  Right on point.

To the point I highlight above, NAN notes the thing that frustrates me the most as I deal with those who've only been exposed to vulgar libertarianism.  I'm in the midst of reading an interesting book entitled, "Your Call Is Important to Us" and the author, although making a number of salient and humorous points, occasionally slips into drawing conclusions about those who espouse a belief in liberty as if they are all the type of right-wing buttheads to whom vulgar libertarianism appeals.

...of course, this is a troubling conclusion, but it reflects how well the vulgar libertarians have usurped the conversation.

Circle_A:

 I think the reason that some libertarians take a wrong stance on "actual existing capitalism" is that they often come across people who have wrong ideas on the market. The fact is that a majority of people in the United States want the state to have its hand, in one way or another, in the economy and/or market. I've personally encountered the argument more than once that "If we take away the government, what's going to stop the corporations from taking over everything?", or some variation of that (or even reduce the size of government, in most cases). The funny thing is that this leads some (the vulgar libertarians) to actually defend corporations with questionable practices like Exxon Mobile, rather than recognize them as part of the problem. I suppose it might be aftershocks of people like Rand saying that Big Business was being "victimized". Along with the military industrial complex being a "myth or worse", of course...it may take a while for libertarianism to disassociate itself with such people.

Thinking that the state is the aggressor against "Big Business" is not entirely true. In fact, there has been more than one instance in American history when the only thing that rescued the holders of capital from the brink of destruction was the state.

Thinking that, if we took away the state, things would continue pretty much the same way that they continue today is insane.

I think part of the problem is a lack of recognition or underemphasis of the extent to which state intervention has historically been (at least selectively) pro-buisiness and centralizing in its effects. I think there's some intellectually dishonesty about precisely what kind of economic system is dominant in the west, and while we might call it socialistic, it's dominantly a corporatist kind of socialism.

While the political left tends to make the mistake of blaming the effects of corporatism and state intervention on a non-existant free market, the political right reacts to this or at least gets baited into reacting to this by defending corporatism or its effects as if it was a free market, and I think that because American libertarianism is so attached to the political right that it also falls into this trap sometimes.

While I definitely view the state as the dominant authority of a territory, nonetheless I think that anarchism is more than just anti-statism. I'd argue that anarchism opposes crime and arbitrary authority as such, and the state is afterall nothing but an institutionalized and ideologically legitimized crime syndicate. But it isn't the only one either. It's in bed with other crime syndicates and wielders of arbitrary authority.

kimochinews:

I read about half of your post before I realized it was you, brainpolice :)

I agree, and I would venture to say that vulgar libertarianism is one of the dominant political beliefs today.

Most arguments for agression eventually rests on one belief: that the lack of a state is equivalent to unchecked concentrations of private power.  The term "vulgar libertarian" refers to one who essentially believes that this is both true and ought-to-be.  The vulgar libertarian shares much with the progressive, who also believes the statement to be true, but does not believe that it ought-to-be. The basis of the two philosophies are the same, and so I think vulgar libertarianism can be said to be a foremost component of contemporary politics.

As for the Mises Institute: I think that a few of their guys can function as vulgar libertarians sometimes, but I don't think that their economic analysis is fundamentally flawed.  If you listen to "Fundamentals of Economic Analysis: A Causal-Realist Approach", you'll find that while there is no specific effort made to point out that corporations are extensions of the state, the central principles and the discussion as a whole is very appropriate and can be applied in a Carsonian direction.

My rule of thumb for Mises is: economics, yes-please; politics, no-thank-you.

Hey Kimo. :P

In relation to some of your points, I've talked in depth about this before elsewhere (and yea, quoting myself is kind of vein, I know):

"The contemporary political left is concerned about the private concentration of power, and in and of itself this is a worthwhile concern, although this concern is often held on the basis or erroneously logic. Furthermore, the solution to the concentration of private power that is often proposed by the contemporary political left is entirely wrong and counterproductive. The error that is made is that the contemporary left advocates concentrating power in the hands of the state in the name of combating private power. This merely shifts the power into different hands. It does not solve the problem at all. It creates new problems. This is one of the fundamental flaws of Marxism as a strategy: it essentially creates a dictatorship in the name of combating private power. What one is left with is an all-powerful government that absorbs the private power into itself. In short, the state itself becomes the monopoly capitalist. Mikhail Bakunin was aware of this problem, which is why he rather sharply critisized Marx.

The contemporary political right faces a bit of a different problem. While they have superficially had anti-government sentiments ingrained into them, they often function as knee-jerk apologists for private concentrations of power. While they may sometimes quite correctly see the problem with governmental concentrations of power, they often overlook the problems with private concentrations of power and the degree to which the two are synergetic. The solution proposed is essentially to artificially empower private institutions. But the political right falls into an inevitable contradiction in doing so, as the only way to do this is through political means, and hence by relying on governmental concentrations of power. The political right also tends to idolize the military. Hence, the conservative's claim to being anti-government is based on a bed of sand. Government is perfectly fine to them, so long as it is in their control, used to stamp out foreign enemies and to empower their allies in the so-called "private" sector. At best, what one is left with is a mixture of the concentration of governmental and private power. But even in the process of pursueing their ends, since they favor political means to those ends, they nonetheless may theoretically empower the state just as much as anyone on the political left would. Even elements within the movement of anarcho-capitalism may fall into the trap of trying to join or infiltrate the state in the name of abolishing it, hence my usage of the term "right-wing marxists" to describe anarcho-capitalists who still favor political strategies."

About the economic analysis of the Mises Institute: I agree that it isn't flawed. It's the most brilliant economic analysis that I've yet seen. My point is that sometimes it's misapplied. Or implications of it that may radicalize one's perspective are often ignored (like the application of the calculation problem to the contemporary large bureaucratic corporation). And yea, I like Mises for his economics rather than his politics.

Not A Number:

The most frustrating aspect of vulgar libertarianism is that non-libertarians take it to represent libertarianism as a whole.  It's not hard to convert a vulgar libertarian to non-vulgar libertarianism (though some VLs are prideful and refuse to admit that such a mistake even exists,) but your average leftist is turned away from libertarianism because the vulgar libertarians get all the publicity.  Either that, or they're deliberately given publicity by statists who want to use them as a propaganda tool, to say "Look, freedom is slavery!  Hear it from the advocates of freedom itself!" </conspiracy theory off>

It's almost as if some libertarians become living manifestations of the cliche of the right-wing hippy or the knee-jerk defender of corporatism.

Heh, I agree, but I think it's cute how you phrased one part:

"I am not convinced that corporations, at least as they currently exist or as large and powerful as they current[ly] are, would exist in a genuine free market."

I'm not sure what you're not absolutely positive that this is the case.  Why the apparent hesistancy with the "I am not convinced" stuff?  As state-sponsored entities designed to take away accountability for the advantage of the state (as the more profitable the corporation is, the more taxes the state can take from it!), there is no way in hell entities such as those we see today could ever exist in a free society. 

And vulgar libertarianism is why I don't call myself libertarian, just as I avoid the word anarchy because of the early 20th century bomb-throwing-Eastern-Europeans and the retarded 31-flavors of anarchists such as syndicalists and primitivists.  Titles are for statists and collectivists.

The only real reason for my slight hesistancy is because I've seen some people get into semantics about what a corporation is and try to say that it would arise contractually.

Brainpolice:

The only real reason for my slight hesistancy is because I've seen some people get into semantics about what a corporation is and try to say that it would arise contractually.

Well I do imagine plenty of investor-oriented firms would somehow approximate limited liability, probably a fair amount of entrepreneurially managed companies as well. Given a certain amount of liberty, there are always methods of having someone contractually agree to "take the bullet" for you (via liability insurance, or some kind of legal maneuvering)

But yeah, a lot of people on the centrist and state socialist left do make the mistake of identifying vulgar libertarianism as being the only kind of anti-statism. I know I've once been called a conservative (being half mutualist, half (apparently) "retarded" syndicalist, and half ancap, I nearing fainted.) just for opposing blind statism. Left statists act like regulations can only have a positive effect on the consumer and worker(nevermind capitalization requirements benefit large banks more than hurt, etc), whereas vulgar libertarians act as if keeping rat hair out of tuna is the fast track to Stalinism.

Vulgar libertarianism, ugh. There is too much of it. I think I saw an article by Thomas Dilorenzo that defended sweat shops. I was thinking "NO! You fool! You're doing it wrong!" I would agree that there is indeed "no better alternative" under the current statist system. But that doesn't mean that you have to say "Look, these people are making more money with the sweat shop than they would make without it!" Not really true, for if it wasn't for the state, these sweat shops wouldn't exist and the people would be better off.

nexalacer:

 retarded 31-flavors of anarchists such as syndicalists and primitivists.  Titles are for statists and collectivists.

That made me laugh.  31-flavors of anarchists is a great way to describe the tangled web of mutually contradictory definitions out there.

As regards titles, I do not entirely agree.  Labels, after all, are a fundamental necessity for communication and our own comprehension.  But the second important part is the content implied by the label.  Most people readily enough label, but have little or no concept of what the content is or entails.  This is one of the main reasons that the 31-flavors exist, hundreds of thousands of people come across it and tend to attach whatever meaning strikes their fancy to 'anarchist', lacking not only a view of the words historical use but also of what precisely is connoted in their own concept.

These stupid label wars, which extend far into the realm of Metal and so forth, derives from the fact that to most people an ideology, party or genre is 'really' what they and their circle of friends like about it and the people they argue with are operating on the same basis.  Nobody defines their terms, as Ayn Rand might demand.  People also have this habit of defining themselves and others according to these labels, whereas someone with a clear understanding of what an individual human being is should understand that such things are merely a property of the person and not the person himself.  In essence, the problem isn't with labels, it's with stupid f'in people.  The fact that the majority of mankind will never understand or care about what is actually the case in anything outside how to get more food and sex is something that has frustrated the rest of us for millenia and will continue to until human beings cease to be human beings.  The real question is are they finally going to get their act together and become something better than the human animal, or are they going to be yet another entry into the fossil strata?

Libertarianism is an obnoxious word to me because it is too long and arbitrarily put together.

Vulgar libertarians are the libertarian equivalent of the idiot punk rocker anarchists who think anarchism is chaos and go around saying "Wooo, chaos!"  Instead of challenging the nonsensical myth that free exchange leads to massive concentrations of wealth, vulgar libertarians go around saying "Wooo, inequality!"

Not A Number:

Vulgar libertarians are the libertarian equivalent of the idiot punk rocker anarchists who think anarchism is chaos and go around saying "Wooo, chaos!"  Instead of challenging the nonsensical myth that free exchange leads to massive concentrations of wealth, vulgar libertarians go around saying "Wooo, inequality!"

That is my experience.  I have had the problem of being mistaken for a vulgar libertarian, by saying that I don't really care about inequality, I care about what conventions and ideas cause it.  Inequality derived from personal merits, regardless of its degree, is in fact desireable.  Thus the fact that I have no problem with a single person owning 90% of everything is often interpreted as an endorsement of existing control of capital.