How amusing it is, I frequently consult my dictionary for entertainment. Now do you have anything to say thats’ worth hearing?
I’ll give you a clue, that’s not guiding.
PDAs, familys, other institutions.
Somebody missed the point.
We are not authoritarians. We are radical libertarians.
We reject authority but we do not reject leadership.
And the two you provided didn’t make a difference.
I am? That’s news.
The two are the same things.
Yeah, our House of Habsburg lover can`t reconcile himself with Franz Joseph being a despicable statist criminal so he must go around pretending ruling does not presume coercion. He is going on about contracting with an institution that takes on some of the roles of the government (sometimes up to defining morality), but the institution is either not territorial (like an insurance company) or is very small (like Branch Dravidians at Waco), but most of all it is voluntary and does not monopolise with force.
Of course the head of such an organisation would not be a ruler, but a leader. A ruler is someone whose power ultimately to some degree rests on powers of coercion while a leader is someone whose power rests solely on the powers of opinion. But were he to recognise this simple truth he would have to change his opinion of the nobility and he just can`t do that, for he loves to grovel at their feet.
A ruler is anybody who rules, or guides another. There will be multiple forces doing this.
Does this apply to what “we” advocate:
No.
No.
Yes, although it may to some extent be disputed.
No.
You have 1 in 4 defintions on your side and the origins of the word againsts your side.
Have you even read Hoppe? Or more importantly the original post?
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/leader
Look what comes up, ruler!
More nonsense. The dictionary disagrees with you, by the way.
Do you have anything to say, that might, you know, be relevant?
I actually don’t like the term anarcho-capitalism either but for different reasons. However, the point is perhaps valid if you bring up the Nockean distinction between government and the state. I find myself agreeing with you because of this and think an added benefit would be that people’s psychological reaction to “no government” is shock; but to “no monopoly on violence,” that’s something they’re unfamiliar with and might give it a fair listen.
A mentor guides another, but isn’t a ruler. Reconcile.
I don’t have to reconcile anything, it’s in the OP.
Capitalism is a legal system. Libertarianism is not a legal system, it’s a system of interpersonal ethics that functions as the context for a legal system. Anarchism is not a legal system, it is the condition that is consistant with the interpersonal ethics of libertarianism. Within the context of libertarian anarchism, multiple different types of legal systems are possible. But libertarian anarchism itself is not a legal system and hence should not be conflated with a particular model. The term “anarcho-capitalism” only makes sense if you define capitalism in a way that regaurds it as one model contextual to libertarian anarchism. In other words, libertarian anarchism subsumes anarcho-capitalism. On the other hand, if anarcho-capitalism is being concieved in a way that functionally makes it the model for a state or number of states, then it is a contradiction in terms.
Yes, you do. A mentor guides another, but is not a ruler. Reconcile.
It seems like Giles is using a broad definition of ruler that isn’t common among libertarians or non-libertarians alike. A voluntary relationship has no “ruler” in it. A ruler is someone who imposes their will on others against their explicit consent, someone with arbitrary authority. There is nothing voluntary about rulership, they are dichotomous. One’s relationship with a ruler is not one which is freely entered or exited, it is imposed prior to consent. A mutually voluntary relationship, on the other hand, is one in which decision-making power is not arbitrary or completely unilaterial. It’s at the consent of everyone involved.
Hoppe? What is he your personal God or something? Yes Ive read some Hoppe. He argues pre-modern state was less evil than a modern state, he doesnt actually run around with a CoA of House of Habsburg. I guess he understands Libertarianism is about not reconciling yourself to evil, lesser or not.
Maybe you ought to consult with 19th century Liberals and ask them about their mad love-in with the Habsburgs?
So now you found it expedient to gloss over the fact statism skews and corrupts the very way language is being used? Not only you yield to statist propaganda, but you use it for your own ends. Rulers are called leaders by the state and agents of the state. Oddly enough statist schools, statist media and statist intelligentsia find it benefitial to refer to head statesmen as “leaders”.
I assure you it is a modern thing. Nobody went around calling Louis XIV a leader.
What, and stop the diggs at you?!
And, as far as I know I wasn’t limiting the discussion to mentors.
But any who guides is a ruler. A mentor guides. A mentor is not a ruler. Reconcile.
Using Giles’s definition, to help someone is to rule them.
It seems to be common with the dictionary:
“to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over; govern”
The dictionary disagrees. Or are dictionaries to bourgousie for the Mutualists?
Why? If I live on your property you rule over me whilst I exist on that property.
Who says a mentor cannot rule over their student in that sense of the word? Moreover a ruler can be somebody who directs, in which case it is applicable.