Then you are being purged. Bye.
Words are, in fact, symbols which, in fact, have no meaning, in fact, beyond what the culture that produces them defines them as. There may be a word, in fact, that is restricted to meaning “one who holds strictly to the non-aggression principle”, but that word is not, in fact, “libertarian”. Words have no absolute meaning, but only that granted by consensus. The consensus opposes you, so, in fact, you’re wrong.
But… But… But who will build the roads?
No, words do have meaning, and the meaning must go back to the origin of the word. You can improperly use the word all you like, you’ll just look foolish. However, that does not change the fact that the word is being improperly used.
Indeed, a precious language, far more varied and nuanced than your simplistic old-world blather. For instance, though I can see how this would be lost on such as you, there are nuances and slight, but meaningful differences between the words you cite as synonyms. Mad and angry denote different severities of the feeling, angry being somewhat greater than mad. A soldier is a state fighting bot, a warrior can mean one far more independent who nonetheless lives by the sword. A debate can be contentious without being hostile. Maybe your precious Italian does not possess such subtleties, though?
Y’know, there are a few steps between the examples you give and Ron Paul’s proposed policies, or I daresay, even the policies of the US currently. We are more LIBERTARIAN than Mussolini, but less LIBERTARIAN than Ron Paul would have us be.
Right, so libertarian was conceived as meaning one who believes that people ought to be free to do pretty much as they like, and surprise surprise, it has largely kept that meaning, despite your attempts to warp it to your desires.
Boo-hoo! Well, maybe your grandfather should have learned English before he came to a primarily English-speaking country. I don’t see why anyone’s tax dollars ought be spent (.) providing conveniences for people too lazy to actually assimilate to a functional degree with the majority culture.
I see, so you are saying language is inflexible and does not change over time? Wierd. I coulda sworn that even such “noble” languages as italian have changed some over the years.
Yes, language does change. Words are reformed in their spellings, pronunciations, and of course idioms and cultural sayings change all the time, however, the words themselves are solid - though they may be used in different contexts, such as adjectives, nouns, verbs, etc.
Apparently they stopped teaching about synonyms in your public schools.
Now you’re talking about adjectives. I’m talking about nouns. If Ron Paul is a libertarian, then so is Mussolini. The degree of “libertarian” in the context of an adjective shouldn’t matter.
And no, your America is at about the same place Italia was during Mussolini’s reign, perhaps even further away considering the murder rate by your government.
I believe PJ Proudhon was the first to use the word libertarian and in the context of his Anarchism, though I may be wrong, the word libertarianism has always been connected with Proudhon’s Anarchism and not, as some seem to suggest, with British liberalism.
Wow… How libertarian.
F-u-c-k you.
You are incorrect, sir. The meanings of words can change, especially when two meanings, once related, have that relationship severed. For instance, saying someone is on a bilous rant originally referred to the idea that anger was tied into the bilous humor, an idea which has been discarded. A person, not familiar with that history, could still use the word “bile” in either rather different context, and quite correctly.
Similarly, “libertarian” was originally coined in Europe to describe the rather incoherent philosophy of anarchist socialism, but by the time it gained wide use on these shores it was already more of a term for minarchism, and even more so has it adopted that meaning over time.
Apparently you learned all you know about English from Wikipedia.
Ron Paul believes that people should, by and large, be free to live their lives as they choose in their own best interests. Mussolini viewed humans as members of the state, and that they should be forced to do as he deemed was most advantageous to the state. One can be properly labeled “libertarian” if one is relatively more libertarian than the bulk of the competing political philosophies of the day. Oh no, relative meaning, RUN!!!
Moderator! He said a naughty word. How MASTERFUL of him! He used HYPHENS to overcome the filter. BRILLIANT!!! {/sarcasm}
As for the opinion, there is nothing unlibertarian about it whatsoever. I’m not saying we should beat him for not speaking Ingerich, just that we shouldn’t cater to his linguistic recalcitrance.
Ok guys calm down! Let’s not start using those wonderful 4 letter words. Let’s let Niccolo believe he’s is right (when nearly all of the other libertarian writers, including Rothbard, recognize that minarchism is a form of libertarianism). It’s not worth fighting about. It’s just a stupid word.
Then you are purged for supporting the CRA. Bye.
Until we have a Minarchist government, it doesn’t matter if you are a Minarchist or Anarchist. We just need to get things moving in our direction.
The problem is that a minarchist government has always been a floating abstraction. Or, at best, it’s only comparative.
(my 2 cents, feel free to skip D: )
I thought one of the problems (that anarchists have with minarchists) in the first place was the Reformists eventually losing out and furthering the word soup & blurred meanings of libertarianism, while wasting resources which could’ve been better spent at being a non-politically active educational gateway for the mainstream to more radical apolitical & political thought outside of the system, thus fostering acknowledgment for a broken system’s problem’s (Statism), that so many apparently do not really see in the present time, and finally realizing radical change is needed?
Honestly, if minarchists were truly minimal about the roles of governance, how does it not apply to minarchists as well?
Wasting time with the “Libertarian” Party might lead to: trying to simply get more people elected, possibly increasing political activity, the amount of people running for office, the size of government, as any reduces are temporary & can easily be countered by other people with other agenda’s being voted in, unless of course you have more “libertarians” continually running for office, furthering the state’s existence & the capacity for Statists to continually fight back in their own tidy system.
Not to worry: libertarians will adjust their goals to become “more electable”, and win accolades with a public who could be, instead, challeneged on the widespread use of the “lesser of evils” doctrine, the use of the typical left & right political spectrums, original meanings of words that have been hijacked; basically how to read between the lines of the Statist’s script for The Grand Political Theatre.
That all seems like a lot of activity in the state to be called “minimal”, especially since the statists will not give up as long as they have the home field advantage.
How is simply educating the public without all the above b.s., which would be a waste of resources, time, effort, morale, & patience of those who are ignorant but willing to listen, not a better idea?
Then again, I suppose if minarchists were truly minimal, I suppose they would be called gatearchists, gatewayarchists, semiarchists, or eduarchists (none of those are very catchy except for the last one…).
Minarchism, as it’s commonly used, just seems like apologizing for a system that, despite having numerous problems, such as hidden tragedies (to the mainstream public), systemic corruption, breeding neo-feudalism, corporatism, cronyism at the highest levels of a government that supposedly “represents” its citizens, military industrial complex, welfare state, a “mixed” economy on warfare lifeline, shouldn’t be messed with, since it seems to somehow “work” for those who don’t get screwed by it (miraculously unscathed, or relatively unscathed compared to less fortunate souls), or for those who are doing the screwing.
“Results of the market”; “competition”, “not as bad as it looks”, some might say? Where can you opt out then? You can’t, really, unless that means being a criminal for the victimless crime of not letting the state “guide” your life.
I see no consistency in calling minarchism “minimal”. The only consistent thing I see is the unspoken gospel of the lesser of evils : .
Sorry for furthering off-topic D:
Why would it do that? (We have an “official language” (actually, three), but government forms are usually available in about a dozen languages)
(FWIW, most states in the US already have English as the official language; LA has English and French)
AFAICT, the designation of “official language” is fairly meaningless. (When the text of a law is promulgated in several languages, the text of the “official language” takes precedence if there’s any argument over the meaning. That’s about it, I think)
Do we have an award for the most uses of “in fact” in a single sentence or paragraph? [:)]
No, I’m not.
Words DO NOT CHANGE. Their usages, however, may. You’re talking about USAGES. That’s fine, but you’re still wrong. But this is already old and you are obviously wrong.
So I’ll just drop it taking a page out of the book of your fellow Conservative letting you have the last word.
Back to the origin of words. Actually, “Anarchist Socialism” was always a form of individualist Anarchism, that is, Anarchism has always been individualistic, this being the definition of an Anarchist. As far as the red baiting goes, however, “Socialist” seems to have originally just meant being opposed to economic exploitation. This is a libertarian idea, given the Proudhonian conception that free markets are the only things that ensure an absence of that.
The term minarchist itself was coined by an Agorist, Samuel Edward Konkin III.
Also, “libertarian” has never had a wide usage on American shores. Unless by “wide” you mean 2% of the population understands what it sort of means.
First, the entire point of comparing Ron Paul to Mussolini was a relevance issue. You’re drawing a distinct and arbitrary line in the sand when you define people as “libertarian” based on broad and relative definitions like, “well, anyone that believes in either no government or necessary government.” You open up a can of worms and if you’ve gone (go) to college doing that, you’re going to be caught on it just the same. Get used to absolutes; it’s the key to logic, something conservatives never seem to understand.
Second, you’re a walking contradiction if you advocate “limited” and “representative” government while objecting to the catering of those that are being represented.
My grandfather doesn’t speak English, so what? If the government is representative then it must represent his needs without such malicious and indignant slurs like, speak English or die, WOP.
I swear, you people, you conservatives, are a pimple on the face of liberty.
Weeeee! Semantics!
Isn’t that kind of the point? Libertarian is one of those blanket terms, like left and right. If you want more defined terms, then use anarchist or minarchist or come up with your own. This kind of argument is wholly useless.
I would recommend “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie.
No, it’s actually the exact opposite of the point. Libertarian is not a blanket term, just like existentialist is not a blanket term.
Libertarians agree on basic principles. The two being non-aggression and self-ownership, two principles that conservatives cannot abide by.
Why can they not abide by these two principles? Because the state is by its own nature aggressive and the state, by its own nature, requires that self-ownership become null - as individuals are ultimately accountable to the state and not their own capacities or to God.
I prefer,
The Psychology of Persuasion: How to Persuade Others to Your Way of Thinking, by Kevin Hogan.