If you wish to apply a strict definition to libertarianism, that is your business. But to me - and most people - it is a blanket term. And then you have leftists who insist on its original definition of anarcho-communism, or whatever it was.
I’m not quite sure what you gain by arguing over ‘ownership’ of words. Seeing that the Chomskyite irrationalists are already trying to take over the word libertarian, I personally feel an altogether new word would be in order.
[8-)]
I don’t care what it is “to you.” That’s just based on your own desire to add statists to the libertarian movement to do what… I don’t know… Just sell out I guess…
You have an oddly autistic approach to all this. Language is just a form of communication. Words need to have commonly agreed upon definitions for the language to be useful. One can, of course, make up one’s own definitions for words that contradict the norm and one can even stick by those contradictory definitions. But the price is that of solitary existence, as no one will understand you. So I don’t really mind that you wish to do so. You can go around calling a plane a chair and a dog a moon, that is your folly. But it bothers me that you see it necessary to clear libertarianism of all variation that diverges from your stance. And the rather insulting manner you go about this isn’t helpful to any of us.
Well first, words do need commonly agreed upon usages, definitions, however, are different. Words are misused all the time, usually by stupid people, and unfortunately the norm is not an intelligent status to aim for.
No one will understand me? Hell, no one seems to understand anyone. In any case, defining something along the correct terms, though misunderstood ones, does not mean that explaining the proper definition is futile. I’ve done it to several people before and it works. Not initially, but I don’t expect to get people to say, “YEAH NIC! You’re right!” There’s a process to conversion and it doesn’t involve me receiving any high praises for doing the dirty work of being too mean.
By the way, I do indeed allow variances in libertarianism - hell, I’ve become rather Mutualist and even sympathetic to Anarcho-Syndicalism - however, I do not allow for people to call themselves libertarians when they are, in fact, not.
Also, in your dog/moon analogy, it doesn’t fit. I am not defining something obviously not libertarian as libertarian, I am defining libertarian in a very specific sense - that is, to your perception. A better analogy would be defining only Jack Russels as domesticated dogs. It’s still an incorrect analogy, but a better one.
Of course it is. Words are inconsequential. The concepts are everything. You don’t win anything by pickering over what the definition of libertarian should be. Especially when the word libertarian was originally used by leftists in France and hasn’t been in widespread use before the 70’s. Words are just coats we dress our concepts in.
Mutualism and Anarcho-syndicalism are libertarian?
Not insofar as I can tell.
They are in fact the original “libertarians”. The word libertarian was invented after the French government outlawed anarchists, forcing them to re-label themselves.
Yep. This is quite often reiterated by leftists who are aware of it. As though it somehow discredits libertarian positions. It is actually quite regrettable how libertarians in the US lost their original title ‘liberals’ to the statists and how liberals in Europe allowed themselves to be re-branded into ‘neoliberals’. There is no common name that would simplify discussion. I can’t use ‘libertarian’ in Europe, because no one will understand it. And I can’t use ‘liberal’ in the US, because everyone thinks it means the left. And in fact I can’t really use liberal in Europe, either, since A) no ‘normal’ person seems to know what it means and B) most make a vague connection to ‘neoliberal’ and while not completely familiar with the term, they know it is capitalistic and thus must be evil.
And again, I reiterate, that is fine what you believe, however, it is still just an example of you and others misusing words.
Go ahead and say that most people do it - I AGREE! - but to suggest that this makes it correct opens up a can of worms on an ethical spectrum.
So, do you still believe I define libertarianism only within the confines of what I believe?
I was mocking a previous post. But if y’all have an award, hooray!
Wow, dude, how do you even walk with that big a chip on your shoulder? Your clavicle must be, like, 3 feet thick or something. As for who the government represents, it represents, primarily, the English-speaking population. That is, the majority. Your grandfather could hire, say, you, to translate for him, or, perhaps just get off his heinie and learn some Ingerich. He can’t, however, demand that I pay because he can’t find time to take a class in English, or you can’t find the time to teach him. My, what a bad, ungrateful grandson you are.
By the by, I’m a quarter wop myself. I’m a quarter wopper. With cheese. Y’know, I like disco sometimes. Cheesy.
Kettle
meet Pot.
And how does one show the validity of a particular definition? You could go with the original definition, but that would shut out pretty much everyone under the definition today. You could go with the consensus definition, but that wouldn’t suit your ends.
I don’t know what you believe, but you did say being more Mutualist and being sympathetic towards anarcho-syndicalism. So your inclusion of these system - which are both quasi-anarchistic - that you prefer or sympathize with, and your exclusion of similarly non-anarchistic systems which you dislike, leads me to conclude you are using quite hypocritical standards. But, again, that is your business. I merely suggest you cease trying to force those standards on others. I see no profit in it for you.
You’re missing the point. I shouldn’t have to teach him. If your government was there to “protect those within its borders” or “represent their interests,” then they should represent all interests, such as from the Italian, Spanish, French-Canadian, Korean, etc. communities.
I know you American exceptionalists like to think that the be-all and end-all of the world is your language and culture, but many people from many different walks of life move around - they shouldn’t be expected to assimilate just because you want to impose an extortionist on them to expropriate their money for yourself without having to pay some of the input costs along the way.
You wonder why people want to see your country burn.
“Pimple” is not an ethnic slur.
No, only those that refuse to abide by the laws of language and those that refuse to be consistent in their speech.
The key is consistency. For the definition to be the right one it must be consistent with its origins.
First, it isn’t about hypocrisy because Mutualism and Anarcho-Syndicalism can be consistent with the principles of libertarianism. Conservativism and mini-statism cannot.
What do you mean by “force,” I have no gun to your head, I possess no means to hurt you. I am making the argument that consistency matters and that language is important.
I’ll spam this same post again:
At least you admit that you’re spamming it at this point. What you won’t admit is that your quoted post was already addressed and refuted in the thread it comes from and constitutes a mischaracterization of the position of those you are confronting.
I am not an American exceptionalist, and I know full well why some people want to see my country burn. Including you jealous little European socialists with your irrelevant and oudated cultures. Because, people around the world are buying a lot of Italian-made movies. Or music. Or… Well, actually, Italy has become an idle curiosity in the world, a tired stereotype of pasta-rolling moustached socialist hairy men. America is, in fact, the most culturally open and flexible place on Earth, far more than any of the crusty cultures of Europe. We even welcome different languages. Just, y’know, don’t be an ignorant SOB to old and stupid to pick up a functional degree of English while in an English-speaking country.
It’s not at all a mischaracterization of his position! What am I accusing him of doing that he isn’t doing?
My post is 100% valid.