Rothbard libertarian

[yuberries]

@StrangeLoop

@yuberries

I don think liberty student was at any point trying to impose his semantics onto everyone else. In the original thread where this discussion came about, he was sharing his opinions on what it meant to be a libertarian; and why his definitions were more concise.

If anyone is being a word bitch… it’s you and larose IMO

@liberty student

It is contradictory. It is a logical contradiction for something to be both A and not A at the same time. You can be a “mostly free marketer” but that is not a “free marketer”. I think it is dishonest when intelligent people eschew the use of logic. You may believe it is just ignorance or some other thing, but I see persistent denial of logic to be fundamentally dishonest.

1. He was the first to assert a snobbishness about how we should use the word “libertarian.”

2. If you consider his ideas to be innocuous “opinions,” then why are my opinions categorically different? I was merely “sharing [my] opinions,” as well.

3. He is insulting others as “dishonest” for using words commonsensically. No one is “eschew[ing] the use of logic,” and his own alleged use of logic still seems lacking (I fail to see any demonstration of formal logic). To claim there are goods which aren’t sufficiently provided by a free market (e.g., “non-excludable” defense) can still allow one to be libertarian; that’s not dishonest. It might be a wrong reason to advocate public defense, but it’s not inherently contradictory.

1- In an opinion thread? "Which Political Philosophy Annoys You Most and Why?"

2- You’re not adding anything

3- He got insulted first