Freedomain Radio

Something I would like Stef to touch on would be Vulgar Libertarianism.  Those who defend large corporations who do horrible things and robber barons would be considered vulgar libertarians. 

Also another thing I'd like to hear about maybe finding some common ground with other forms of anarchism, because I find that other types of anarchists are hostile to market anarchist types and I think our movements could benefit from one another quite a lot. 

On the list of great evils of the world... vulgar libertarianism ranks somewhere around imaginary villains like Skeletor or the Arch-Lich Vecna. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I find it kind of hard to muster up actual anger against libertarians.

In any case, there are already some great podcasts on this around the issue of Ron Paul.

And I just want to point out that many of the people who like to market the term vulgar libertarian are way more messed up about economics than vulgar libertarians. Just look at Kevin Carson.

While vulgars apply the correct principles (e.g. marginal theory of value) to the wrong situations (e.g. corporatism), Carson applies the wrong principles (e.g. labor theory of value) to the correct situation (e.g. corporatism). Take your pick; they're both messed up, but I'd rather be around people based on principles (e.g. Carson) rather than vague notions of "free markets".

Believe me, I've been around vulgar libertarians a lot. They have much less interest in objectifying concepts. They have little to offer in terms of learning, unless perhaps they know of some economics which you could extrapolate to a true voluntary society. Maybe I'm overgeneralizing because most of the vulgar libertarians I know are cooked up in some sort of conspiracy theory (MSM hates Ron Paul, NWO trying to implement a world government, quotes from the founding fathers).

As for wedding myself to a particular idea, I said that I'd much rather speak with a mutualist than a vulgar libertarian since I stand to learn much more from them despite the fact they are much more different from me than a vulgar libertarian.
 

Simply because someone claims they believe in libertarian principles doesn't mean that they actually practice what they preach, though. Libertarianism is not unlike any other body of thought in that respect.

I think most of the reason "vulgar libertarians" exist (and yes, they do) is because of the frusteration some have with irrational prejudices against the free market. This, in many ways, is a valid concern.

Capitalism as it exists today has historically needed much intervention from the state to perpetuate itself, however, and coercion is something that libertarians are against (or are supposed to be against, in any case.) This makes up a lot of what Carson writes about, and is the most valuable, in my opinion. One only needs to take a stroll down labor history lane to see this.

You don't have to agree with everything that Carson says.  Very few of his arguments hinge upon the labor theory of value; most of them are observations about current or historical government intervention.  Also, he makes arguments in favor of small, non-hierarchical organizations (e.g. workers' cooperatives) as opposed to hierarchical ones based on knowledge problems, similar to the "calculation problem" of Mises.

By the way, Carson's labor theory of value isn't the same as Marx's.  I think his argument is that when the free market is in equilibrium, the monetary reward for labor (i.e. wages, profits, or whatever) is proportional to the subjective disutility of the labor involved.  (I might be oversimplifying this, so I apologize in advance.)  That sounds plausible, since a lack of such proportionality would likely cause people to change jobs until equilibrium is achieved (translation: everyone wants an easier job that pays more.)  I'm not sold on it yet, though I recognize that it's compatible with the subjective theory of value.

Not A Number:

You don't have to agree with everything that Carson says.  Very few of his arguments hinge upon the labor theory of value; most of them are observations about current or historical government intervention.  Also, he makes arguments in favor of small, non-hierarchical organizations (e.g. workers' cooperatives) as opposed to hierarchical ones based on knowledge problems, similar to the "calculation problem" of Mises.

By the way, Carson's labor theory of value isn't the same as Marx's.  I think his argument is that when the free market is in equilibrium, the monetary reward for labor (i.e. wages, profits, or whatever) is proportional to the subjective disutility of the labor involved.  (I might be oversimplifying this, so I apologize in advance.)  That sounds plausible, since a lack of such proportionality would likely cause people to change jobs until equilibrium is achieved (translation: everyone wants an easier job that pays more.)  I'm not sold on it yet, though I recognize that it's compatible with the subjective theory of value.

To be more specific, Carson actually tries to synthesize the subjective theory of value with a labor theory of value. I think that he ultimately fails in this endeavor, but nonetheless most of his criticism is spot on. And as you say, he's basically just pointing out how state intervention concentrates capital, externalizes costs and subsidizes large size. He also applies the calculation problem to the firm.

JC Hewitt:

On the list of great evils of the world... vulgar libertarianism ranks somewhere around imaginary villains like Skeletor or the Arch-Lich Vecna. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I find it kind of hard to muster up actual anger against libertarians.

In any case, there are already some great podcasts on this around the issue of Ron Paul.

I fail to see how the existance of libertarians who misuse free market theory to legitimize the effects of corporatism is imaginary.

JC Hewitt:

...imaginary villains like Skeletor or the Arch-Lich Vecna...

If Vecna isn't real, then whose dessicated hand and eye do I have?  Next thing you'll be saying that my Sword of Kas is a knock-off.

Perhaps what Nojus is referring to is a lack of empathy on the part of many Libertarians who express a selective outrage at government actions that harm them, but are indifferent to the suffering of others.

Kind of like the way Thomas Jefferson was all about liberty, but oh by the way he owned slaves.