A Redefinition of Terms in the Anarcho-Capitalist Paradigm

[Minarchist]

@gotlucky

LOL…

As anyone can see, if we just insert our own definitions into other people’s arguments, we can easily demonstrate that they are unsound. And since Minarchist has stated that he believes this is a valid technique, he is “estopped” (ty Kinsella) from bitching about this post.

Let me correct you:

if we just insert our own definitions into other people’s arguments demonstrate that the premises of other people’s arguments are false, we can easily demonstrate that they are unsound

In the other thread, I stated that Rothbard’s definition of will/body (a premise of his argument) is false. Hence, despite his argument being valid, the argument is unsound. I didn’t insert my own definition into his argument and call it unsound on that basis. You are simply confused.

EDIT:

For bystanders, here’s the thread in question:

Inalienability of the self

According to standard AnCap theory, the self is inalienable. Why? Next, the reason you can’t have voluntary slavery is because of this inalienability, right? What voluntary slavery entails is the ability of another party to legally use physical force on you. If the self ought to be inalienable, then you cannot grant the legal power to someone else to use force on your body. Yet if this is so I don’t see how we can have heart surgeons or rescue teams. Am I confused?

EDIT2:

Final comment, your criticism seems to revolve around some idea that definitions cannot be challenged. Now, if we were talking about stipulative definitions, that would be true. But Rothbard’s definition is not a stipulative definition (definition arguendo), it is a real definition (i.e. a proposition which can be true or false).