Liberty Alone

An interesting article although I feel you use vulgar in a very different way to the man you linked too who described ‘vulgar libertarianism’. Your vulgarity implies someone who simply does not understand your view of ‘how the world works’ while t’other’s vulgarity is seen to be a part of using specific pieces of an ideology and science, creating a ‘reducto ad absurdum’ out of those pieces of ideology and then presenting them as if they were science in order to further special interests.
In my view vulgarity is as vulgarity does. It is the application of a set of complex and detailed viewpoints, whether it be those of Adam Smith or Charles Darwin or Friedman in a way that over simplifies the world around us to the point that academic theories lose all meaning when compared to the reality of humanity. One can see this all around us and I have rather come to the conclusion that humanity often needs simplification of this sort in order not to feel lost in the complex and often frightening world we live in. That is not to say I understand the world in full, merely that I can see my own vulgarity and sharpen my own thoughts using that ability.
On the point of the welfare state dependancy being equated to a form of slavery I would have to dissagree. I find libertarians often use language in a way that is misleading, which tries to exert strong emotional feeling in places where the emotion and history tied in does not actually relate whether it be linking taxation to theft or reducing the motivations of politicians to pure greed.
Welfare dependancy is created where those people feel entrapped in their own poverty. It becomes too much effort to get a job (if there are in fact any jobs available) and to contribute to society as they would probably have to lose much of the government benefit they had already been taking. There are odd cultural movements also linked into this where it becomes more acceptable to live off the dole than it does to work in a job that might be considered highly undignified by their peers and unrewarding by the people involved themselves.
The government is lured into an odd trap where it is niether capable of providing people with dignified work in fear of upsetting the corporations it believes the economy relies on and at the same time it cannot take away the benefits of the poor because of the obvious humanitarian consequneces that a move would cause. instead the government slowly reduces benefits and puts up disincentives for not working whether it is the proposal to evict unemployed council housers or the welfare to work legislation. This doesn’t change any of the fundamentals of the job market in providing employment neither do the government particularly attempt to increase working conditions but it does have the effect of enforcing people to work jobs that they hate doing in order to feed their families at the same time as not making them particularly better off. Those are my thoughts on the subject anyway

Tinter:

I’m trying to talk in the broader liberal context here, which is where contradiction may arise.
I was trying to avoid looking like I was saying ‘what I believe is liberalism and anything else is wrong’.

I think the electoralisation has a lot to do with it. Look at Community Politics. It was not meant to be about getting elected, but it turned into pavement politics and a means to get elected, but offering to do things for people rather than to encourage people to do things for themselves.