From RationalWiki

No, this isn't about Libertarians cussing

“ ” The modern The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. —John Kenneth Galbraith

Vulgar libertarianism (otherwise known as "LOLbertarians", "brogressives", or "glibertarians") is a term used to refer to libertarians who approach that political philosophy with an altogether cynical attitude[1] or more generally as a term that describes libertarians who exist for the purpose of justifying unfair socio-economic hierarchies using appeals to laissez-faire capitalist and socially liberal ideology. It was coined by the "free market anti-capitalist" blogger Kevin Carson.

Kevin Carson on vulgar libertarians [ edit ]

In georgist tradition, vulgar libertarians are known as royal libertarians, a term coined by Dan Sullivan.[2]

Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because "that’s not how the free market works" — implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of "free market principles."

Anti-authority posturing [ edit ]

See the main article on this topic: Reaganism

“ ” I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality. —John Randolph of Roanoke

Hard-libertarians and Randians gild themselves as enlightened individuals most in tune with reason, when in reality, they are so full of shit it's leaking out of their ears: No matter how much they pretend to care about scientific evidence, 'moral clarity', etc. they're somehow perfectly willing to believe in the fantastical myths of limitless growth and limitless profit, that history needs to somehow stop in its tracks and move backwards to move forwards[3] i.e. eliminate everything that's been gained with democratic government, placing all of the power into the hands of a few transcendent John Galt supermen, creating a situation that, in reality, would probably be akin to the inhuman power structures of ancient Egypt, or Putin's Russia that they pretend to hate but likely envy.[4][5] They see no problem at all in letting advertisers use whatever tricks they can think of to hoodwink the public (fostering public irrationality is perfectly fine so long as it's only fucking things up for 99.9999% of the population).

Anti-authority posturing is used to argue against pure democracy, but then they kick away the ladder to create a pure authoritarian society. Just going with the main spokespeople—and leaving out dumb individual comments made by Stefan Molyneux and other YouTube quacks—you will find:

Those are just some of the greatest hits. But much of the authoritarianism comes from things these authors don't talk about. Like the tremendous amount of power gained from privately-owned roadways,[14] or how children would have no independent income, ergo no human rights.[15] Within one or two generations, there would be no possibility of voluntarism in those societies.

Libertarians as corporate mouthpieces [ edit ]

Vulgar libertarians are those who focus on those parts of a free-market policy that most benefit big business, such as:

...while ignoring other parts that would most benefit individuals and small businesses, such as:

Nor ought you expect them ever to question the very existence of limited-liability corporations, which depends on the State's refusal to use or authorise force to collect some debts incurred by some actual persons but not others. Nor do they object to the State's interference with freedom to make contract when it increases employers' power. (Though they believe in personal responsibility, there is no contradiction because they say there isn't.) A few exceptions exist, for instance the Libertarian Party USA officially opposes right-to-work, but they negate this by (naturally) saying employers should be able to refuse recognition of unions and of course fire any worker who joins them. Many US states already permit employment contracts have "no union" clauses to this effect.

Steve Milloy, formerly of the Cato Institute, now of Fox News, is a vulgar libertarian, in that his primary interest is in denial of scientific developments that might suggest a need for new regulations, such as global warming research and the dangers of tobacco smoking.

Vulgar libertarianism vs. Beltway libertarianism [ edit ]

"Vulgar libertarianism" is somewhat similar to the insult of "Beltway Libertarianism" leveled at such think tanks as the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation. Carson has accused some of these institutions of vulgar libertarianism; this might be expected, since (1) these think tanks are being funded by those noted beneficiaries of libertarian[note 1] policies, Koch Industries and oil, tobacco, and other corporate interests[28] and (2) Carson is being funded by that noted beneficiary of non-libertarian policies, the health care industry.[29]

See also [ edit ]

Plutonomy

r/Libertarian - Everything is slavery and rape, except slavery and rape which aren't all that bad.

Vulgar Libertarianism at Kevin Carson's blog

Debate at Cato Unbound over libertarianism vs. corporatism.

Notes [ edit ]

↑ Or rather selectively libertarian economic policies benefitting large corporations