Comments on: Vulgar Liberals http://www.eridu.org.uk/blog/2008/04/26/vulgar-liberals/ Liberalism and general burblings Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:04:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: tristan http://www.eridu.org.uk/blog/2008/04/26/vulgar-liberals/#comment-29583 tristan Thu, 01 May 2008 09:05:15 +0000 http://www.eridu.org.uk/blog/2008/04/26/vulgar-liberals/#comment-29583 John: I understand Kevin's vulgar libertarianism as taking libertarianism, but not recognising its full implications and using it to support the state created status quo. That's what I was trying to convey as vulgar liberalism. It takes the aims part way and then tries to justify the status quo. Freedom from conformity is nodded at, but conformity in healthcare and education is enforced. It is one liberal viewpoint (which I generally disagree with, but accept as a liberal argument) that the state has a place in ensuring freedom, but the vulgar liberal changes this to the state must have a place in ensuring freedom, and only the state can do this. John:
I understand Kevin’s vulgar libertarianism as taking libertarianism, but not recognising its full implications and using it to support the state created status quo.

That’s what I was trying to convey as vulgar liberalism.
It takes the aims part way and then tries to justify the status quo.
Freedom from conformity is nodded at, but conformity in healthcare and education is enforced.

It is one liberal viewpoint (which I generally disagree with, but accept as a liberal argument) that the state has a place in ensuring freedom, but the vulgar liberal changes this to the state must have a place in ensuring freedom, and only the state can do this.

]]> By: tristan http://www.eridu.org.uk/blog/2008/04/26/vulgar-liberals/#comment-29582 tristan Thu, 01 May 2008 08:51:37 +0000 http://www.eridu.org.uk/blog/2008/04/26/vulgar-liberals/#comment-29582 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. 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.

]]> By: Tinter http://www.eridu.org.uk/blog/2008/04/26/vulgar-liberals/#comment-29508 Tinter Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:05:41 +0000 http://www.eridu.org.uk/blog/2008/04/26/vulgar-liberals/#comment-29508 Your post seems to contradict earlier arguments I have had with you over freedom being a purely negative construct. Am I misinterpreting? More on topic, I think one problem with this lies with the electoralism of the party. The only solution the party really gives to activists is to use the state to solve problems. So, naturally, this is what they do. It would be great to see the party at least give a nod towards building solutions outside of the state, from credit unions and community organisations onwards. However, it probably wouldn't win any elections so it won't be done- enforcing the fundamentally illiberal view the the only way to advance our liberal goals is by gaining the reigns of the state. I mean, yes thats the most important, but its not the only way and its also not happening. Your post seems to contradict earlier arguments I have had with you over freedom being a purely negative construct. Am I misinterpreting?

More on topic, I think one problem with this lies with the electoralism of the party. The only solution the party really gives to activists is to use the state to solve problems. So, naturally, this is what they do.

It would be great to see the party at least give a nod towards building solutions outside of the state, from credit unions and community organisations onwards. However, it probably wouldn’t win any elections so it won’t be done- enforcing the fundamentally illiberal view the the only way to advance our liberal goals is by gaining the reigns of the state. I mean, yes thats the most important, but its not the only way and its also not happening.

]]> By: John Dixon http://www.eridu.org.uk/blog/2008/04/26/vulgar-liberals/#comment-29463 John Dixon Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:47:17 +0000 http://www.eridu.org.uk/blog/2008/04/26/vulgar-liberals/#comment-29463 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 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

]]>