Last edit didn't make much sense and the poster seemed to miss the point. Vulgar libertarians are those who tend to engage in free market rhetoric to promote their funders' interests or to defend corporate malfeasance for whatever reason. Steve Milloy is a vulgar libertarian as he's a paid for oil/tobacco shill using libertarian rhetoric. Megan McArdle is a regular libertarian who just happens to be clueless and stumbles into arguments defending the indefensible. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to be operating under the premise, not accepted by libertarians, that there is some sort of conflict between free market rhetoric and the funders' interests. As long as the Fake Libertarians are not actually opposing the other parts of a free market, as contrasted with merely ignoring them, it is not very sound to condemn them for hypocrites. ListenerXTalkerX 03:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the connection with Sophisticated theology is that theology and vulgar libertarianism twist logic to suit the proposes of those who support the system in question. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have come to the conclusion that Proxima Centauri is possessed by a demon, which compels her type up only the very dumbest ideas that cross her mind. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 09:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The liberty of adding some counterexamples on the specificity of the benefits of certain vulgar-libertarian goals has been taken. Also, while this does characterize the Beltway end of vulgar libertarianism adequately, Carson also describes the vulgarity of vulgar libertarianism (EDIT - add in "as the tendency" which somehow missed making it into the message I typed Frostbyte (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)) to defend any profitable status quo as suitably libertarian (or, put another way, to confuse a pro-business position for a pro-market one). The article would benefit from including this. Frostbyte (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- the vulgarity of vulgar libertarianism to defend any profitable status quo as suitably libertarian
- That's a good point, and how I generally understood vulgar libertarianism to function in the first place. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The opening sentence seems to fall short of defining the topic. The first sentence almost gets there, but ends with the phrase "cynical attitude". Then there is a long paragraph that seems to say nothing about the topic.
From what I can glean later in the article, VLs are people who wear the mantle of Lib'tism but do so merely lend a sheen of respectability to their promotion of narrow commercial interests, and have no interest in any other aspects of the philosophy (such as it is). If this is the case, the lead should say it.
The second paragraph should probably just be removed. It seems to be just a rant, and not a particularly pointed one. Cheers, ħuman 02:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Would Carl Barks be considered a vulgar libertarian?
Barks was the creator of Scrooge McDuck, Donald Duck's super-rich uncle who pursues any legal opportunity to amass more wealth. He argued that the greatest and most culturally important architecture ever created was made through the funding of wealthy capitalists, and that such architecture is no longer possible due to movements to protect against "exploitation" of workers. He wanted a return to "exploitation" and the creation of great works. (Sadly, no one asked him if this included the pyramids.) Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=f20xMWyka3oC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=carl+barks+exploitation&source=bl&ots=kne_yNDKWi&sig=lu4mjAjNnmHX5UWXR1VmgHmk4_s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjV-KGXrKHOAhVEKWMKHfuRD38Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=carl%20barks%20exploitation&f=false
(....nor how exploited he would have to be before he would 'resent' it, e.g. how many fingers would he need to lose hewing, moving, or placing stone blocks.22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC))
There's a comment 2 years ago complaining that the article doesn't begin with a good definition of vulgar libertarianism. It's been edited since then, but still does a very poor job of explaining itself. What do they believe? What do they say and do? Why are they vulgar? --Gospatric (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)