I would note that I really don’t see the relevance of this discussion - the back and forth really doesn’t give us anything new, now does it?
Strangeloop; maybe it can help to carefully lay out what you consider to be a libertarian in general. Even if you accept the language game theory definition of libertarian - which I do - it’s still possible to give some characteristics of what you deem libertarian or not, isn’t it?
Student; maybe it’s mentioned before, but it’s not clear to me. What’s your definition (if any) of a libertarian and what follows from it?
Maybe this way we can grow a mutual understanding?
Since I have allegedly produced a plethora of “logical fallacies,” would you be so kind as to mention them specifically? It seems a bit impolite to make an accusation without substantively demonstrating it. Furthermore, could you be a dear and expose my invalid reasoning using formal logic? You boast quite frequently that your arguments are tailored by a skilled logician, so I would appreciate a helping hand in improving my weakly-conceived propositions.
Since I have already provided a working definition of libertarian, I will quote myself, “If I wanted to offer a general definition of libertarian, I would simply claim it is someone that endorses as much of a free market as he believes technically practicable.”
That is, someone that advocates free markets to the extent that he believes such institutions can be feasibly implemented; terms like “endorses” and “advocates” obviously imply that the person favors free markets primarily, as compared to alternative institutions. Under this definition, thinkers such as Milton Friedman do qualify.
Of course, let me restate my more fundamental belief: “absolute meanings,” as you originally called them, do not exist. In fact, I don’t even believe “meaning” exists in any Platonic sense, but to discuss that would lead me into a Quinean digression that I’m not much interested in providing.
How can an ‘absolute meaning’ not exist? A bachelor means absolutely an unmarried man. No? I’ve no idea what the ‘Platonic’ conception has to do with it. Abstraction and the essence of a word can exist, i.e. one can define certain words and that meaning is absolute.
Seriously; is this an outgrow of neo classical economics or is it just your vision on meaning and words independent from it? (Which, to be sure, is a position that I’ve never heard anyone defend in the history of the philosophy of language.)
If you’ve never heard anyone defend this in the philosophy of language, then you haven’t read enough. Trust me, I am too preoccupied by other interests to have originally developed these ideas. The doctrine of semantic holism can lead to this conclusion (cf. Quine); likewise, when one reduces the mind to mechanism (e.g., cognitive science), one sees that there is only syntax all the way down (in his book Elbow Room, Daniel Dennett compares the notion of “semantic engines” that produce “meaning” to fanciful ideas like perpetual motion machines).
And, when you claim analytic truths like “a bachelor is an unmarried man” is proof of meaning, I’ll happily challenge your notion of synonymy. For added clarification, read this.
These are complicated ideas that are incredibly counterintuitive; additionally, they are also off-topic.
P.S. This philosophy is not an outgrowth of neoclassical economics, but it is a development of naturalism.
It really doesn’t. I point out that strangeloop is being evasive and illogical, and he evades and posts fallacies again. It’s strictly whack-a-mole at this point, but I do think it is instructive for the gallery to see what squishy libertarianism looks like when subjected to a straighforward logical inquiry.
Then you have not been reading me at all, and I wonder why you have inserted yourself in this debate. I mean really dude, I had to have covered that no less than a dozen times this week.
I think we have a mutual understanding.
I am not judging motive, I am merely pointing out action. Why he chooses (motive) to evade and dodge is completely different than the fact that he clearly is and has been (action).
Despite the feelings I have about his character, I am challenging him about the quality of his argument. Those Coordination Problem and Lew Rockwell fans can see much harder language used in internecine libertarian arguments than what has been posted here. If strangeloop would give straightforward and precise answers, I wouldn’t feel compelled to keep pointing out that he is not.
I’ve repeatedly asked you to provide evidence of “illogical” arguments and “fallacies” rather than just smearing me with those terms; you’ve failed to do so.
Furthermore, since I am an anarcho-capitalist, I can still qualify as a “squishy libertarian”? Am I interpreting you correctly?
Every time I have spotted a fallacy, I have pointed it out. It’s not hard for you to find them, and claiming it is a smear when it is clear for all to see is just more playing the victim, which I think doesn’t help you. It further undermines your credibility in this debate to keep doing so.
You’re also a fascist, a pacifist, a democrat, a dictator, a communist and a whatchamacallit, right? Ideological words don’t have any meaning but what meaning I give to them through [sic] use!
You don’t have a leg to stand on in this debate except to keep portraying yourself as a victim, because you have held to the claim that ideological words don’t have meaning.
Yes, I am, unfortunately, a moral nihilist. I have very weak ideas on the matter, too feeble to even count as principles.
As David Friedman has said recently, “I don’t have any solid basis for my own moral beliefs, any way of proving to a reasonable and open minded skeptic that they are correct.” As a person that disbelieves one can rationally arrive at a deontological, objectively true morality, I mainly strive toward generally desirable outcomes (as most consequentialists do).
If you believe this is an accurate portrayal of my position, you have entirely missed my point. I believe meaning is use; quoting Quine, “Success in communication is judged by smoothness of conversation, by frequent predictability of verbal and nonverbal reactions, and by coherence and plausibility of native testimony.”
If most persons use libertarian in a manner that includes Milton Friedman, then meaning has been established.
Except you’re misreading what David Friedman is saying. He can’t prove his moral beliefs objectively, he’s not claiming he doesn’t have them, act on them or that they cannot be classified. You have abused his position (which is my position btw) into something formless and contradictory.
I’m still unconvinced you understand what this means. I assure you that quoting references (for the sake of clarity, interest, etc.) is not an argumentum ad verecundiam.
This is fine if we are talking about popular perceptions but if we are talking political philosophy, we are the experts and the mass populace are laymen
nirgrahamUK, I bet the word tree has slightly different meanings to a scholar of horticulture, a scholar of comparative mythology, and an ordinary layperson; however, I also bet that all three could successfully and sensibly communicate when using the term.
Likewise, if we wish to claim that only academic specialists or other "experts’ can be trusted to use the word libertarian, then why are Rothbard, Huerbert, and Friedman discounted as such “experts” while liberty student is elevated to that status? If we wish to use your criterion, nirgrahamUK, then I believe even most experts use the word more inclusively.
Essentially, if we assume Rothbard is an “expert” on political philosophy and he used the term to include limited-government advocates, then shouldn’t you side with me?
