No one is even using formal logic! I’m quite frustrated with arguments here boiling down to “I, the most rigorous thinker present, am using logic while you dopes are arguing irrationally!”
There’s nothing–absolutely nothing–logical about simply defining a word. I could say bear now means “all creatures colored purple.” There’s nothing to it. Likewise, I could say libertarian means “someone who applies the non-aggression principle to reach anti-statist conclusions.” That’s fine. I appreciate the aesthetic appeal of consistency. The problems are that (A) most people, including libertarians, don’t use that definition (B) moral consistency doesn’t make a definition more accurate than another.
It’s like a white supremacist saying, “You’re not a real white supremacist until you hate even one-droppers!” There’s no logic per se in the argument; the definition is just being narrowed for the sake internal consistency according to the speaker’s values.
Strangeloop, it basically boils down to a more fundamental disagreement, not about the mere word ‘libertarian’ but of the concept of ‘liberty’.
There is certainly less wiggle room in an argument over whether impinging someone’s liberty to engage in consenting capitalist acts in establishing a PDA in competition with a monopolist state is an infringement of liberty, isn’t there?
I don’t mind disagreement. But the debate is within the libertarian movement. To quote Rothbard once more, “I have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial questions that divide libertarians. Some that have received a lot of attention in the last few years are: anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government, abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural rights vs. utilitarianism, and war vs. peace.”
To be a limited-government advocate, even according to Rothbard, is to still be a libertarian.
You are simply talking about your rhetoric, but what you advocate is functionally equivalent with the rhetoric of others, so you can be forgiven for being lumped together.
The truth is you can be pushed on the matter. can you have anarcho-capitalism without liberty?
But… If you replace “anti-intervention” with [say] “fascist” ,because who says I can’t and besides, socialists do it all the time, then fascist interventionist actually sounds pretty damn good and even consistent.
There you see.. I refuted any apparent logical contradiction.
You mean when an apple is a banana, but you appeal to Wiggenstein to call it an apple anyway?
You’re still playing games and trying to avoid the issue. I asked you for YOUR definition. You use the word libertarian, so I assume YOU know what YOU mean when YOU use the term. What is it that YOU mean?
Or do YOU not know what YOU mean when YOU use the word libertarian? Is everyone a libertarian by your standard? If not, why?
Not necessarily. People who reject logic are great for demonstrating irrationality versus rationality to the gallery, but yeah, someone who clings to positions that are logically inconsistent, even when the illogic of those positions is clearly explained and demonstrated to them, isn’t demonstrating an interest in logic or intellectual rigor.
No, what he’s saying is that as far as societal arrangements go, people are better off under anarcho capitalism than they are under any other system of governance.
If I’m not mistaken, Strangeloop gave a definition here (or agreed with one). So I don’t see any reason to keep on talking this aggressive to one another.
