First, let me take a step back and apologize if I began to personally insult you. I do believe you’re a capable thinker. However, definding a word according to one’s own whims (whether philosophically supported or not) is incredibly problematic; that’s what I was attempting to address–you are grabbling with a problem that foregrounds large swaths of the philosophy of language, yet you are not acknowledging that context. You are arguing in a void where 20th-century linguistics and philosophy of language never existed.
You have entirely failed to grasp my argument: one person calling Friedman a “bicycle” is entirely meaningless; that’s why I evoked Wittgenstein’s private language argument. Likewise, a small cadre (I’m counting only you and Sieben, actually) trying to re-define “libertarian” in a manner that opposes a larger community of speakers who use it more liberally is a Sisyphean task.
Historical precedent matters insofar as the meaning remains the same; thus, if libertarianism was a philosophy that advocated limited-government in 1955 and most people still use it in that fashion, then your heterodox definition has no grounding in either history or contemporary use. As I said, even Rothbard didn’t use it as narrowly as you are attempting.
Language is a social phenomenon where acceptable use is codified by implicit customs.
Strangeloop, I asked you for YOUR definition of libertarian, which I will happily accept into this debate so YOU can defend the meaning of the word.
Do I need to repost that request? And if I do, will you continue to avoid advancing the argument anyways?
See, I don’t really care if you do it or not. As you continue to dodge and pin false claims on others, you destroy any respect anyone could have for you as a thinker. You’ve not establishged credibility on any issue in this discussion, despite your attempts to appeal to several authorities along the way. No one cares about authorities if you cannot defend your claims and will not participate openly.
We are all waiting for you to enlighten us non-libertarians (?) as to the true meaning of the word (and thus completely undermine your premise that language is not absolute).
You really can’t be libertarian and pro-government. If you are a minarchist, the state should always be seen in a negative light, and only a minor necessity in establishing order. Sort of better of two evils or view that anarchy was impossible (or not thought of). That’s how I thought when I was a minarchist, either way, I still saw government more as a nuisance.
I’m just saying the attitude is anti-state, though it may not be consistent.
a statist (or minarchist) can be a libertarian so long as his motives are unquestionably towards freedom. Imagine someone who was born in totalitarianism, and within the grim context of his existance, he concluded that a democratic government would be a more free way to organize society. He does not conclude that anarchy or even minarchism would be better, but thats merely because he was never introduced to it. Nonetheless! I would call such a person a libertarian.
Yes, it is vague and arbitrary to define libertarianism this way, but it has the advantage of explaining why and how people may call each other unlibertarian even when they have similar deontological conclusions! And the perfect ad-hoc solution for this thread! yay
Exactly, as Strangeloop has said; if one calls themselves a libertarian, we can somewhat safely assume they mean it (politicians aside). The only judge that can ever be used is liberty (libert-tarian), and if that is the primary focus. Any attempt to dwindle it down from there will just be getting into definitions of what liberty and freedom are.
I think it is safe to say, given the history of language, and even contemporary things like slang, that language is a quasi-market process. This was my whole point in making the thread, that blanket, exclusionary statements that dwindle libertarian down to simply Rothbardianism dismisses the illucid history of libertarianism ( a fact) and disallows Ron Paul, Rothbard, and probably anyone at all from being called by the adjective.
"I can control what I don’t own. I can eat what I don’t own. Hence, I can act and make propositions without owning (i.e. having a property right to) anything whatsoever.
Z."
That’s a non sequitur. What must be pre-supposed is your direct control and ownership over your own body, before it is possible to ‘control what you don’t own, eat what you don’t own’.
Neoclassical: “True or False: Ron Paul has publicly argued we should follow the Constitution.”
Are you blind? Or just wilfully ignorant?
This is quoted from the thread I suggested you read to alleviate your ignorance, which you obviously didn’t. Essentially, every single “argument” you offer I’ve already addressed in there:
Except he’s never advocated it, when compared to a voluntaryist society. So you’d be erecting a strawman. Philosophically, the question you need to ask is “Compared to what?”
COMPARED to what we have now, would you prefer a return to the size of government as outlined in the US Constitution? (Obviously leaving aside the fact that it would only grow in size again).
Except you’re completely wrong, Conza. Ron Paul wants to secure the border between Mexico and the United States to reduce illegal immigration. He also advocates arresting and deporting all illegal immigrants back to the countries they came from. That sounds like he’s advocating aggression (according to your definition) to me.
“Ron Paul wants to secure the border between Mexico and the United States to reduce illegal immigration. He also advocates arresting and deporting all illegal immigrants back to the countries they came from. That sounds like he’s advocating aggression (according to your definition) to me.”
It is an argument of second bests. If it was a free society, where private property owners decided who was allowed to enter via their property - they would have the ability to discriminate & reject anyone they wish. Those not invited would not gain entry - there would be no forced integration like there is now. Given the obvious nature that the 9/11 attacks were a result of blow back and in all likelihood wouldn’t have taken place in a free society, i.e no US empire over there, no gun control on planes / better security, that is not the current situation - hence this proposal… if in a free society such an attack happened (an actual group of fanatics [be it religious or not] from a specific region became hell bent on destroying something via violent means - I’m sure property owners would pay attention to that fact and deal with it in various ways.
"Q: Is it even practical to try to send 12 million illegal immigrants all home?
A: I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it’s pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn’t be rewarded. And that would be the case." - Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007
There are prominent libertarians on all sides of immigration (in terms of second bests). The immigration issue, like abortion - I don’t see differences as being a disqualifier from the movement or label because of it.
Why ownership? Furthermore, even if you must presuppose ownership of your own body, how does that translate to a necessary ownership of (property right to) anything else outside your body? I repeat, I can control X without “owning” X. Anything that can be owned can also be controlled without owning it.
So his ‘second best’ option requires aggression and coercion. According to Liberty Student that disqualifies him from being a libertarian. I’m not personally saying that he’s not a libertarian, don’t get me wrong.
(not to mention he also voted in favor for the war in Afghanistan)
Because there is a difference between mere possession & ownership (legitimate / rightful possession / control). To make clear that slavery, or any other things of an empirical nature have no concern for argumentation ethics as an impossibility proof.
“Furthermore, even if you must presuppose ownership of your own body, how does that translate to a necessary ownership of (property right to) anything else outside your body?”
First user. In the case of external scarce resources, the owner is the original appropriator (or someone he transferred it to).
“it would be…impossible to sustain argumentation for any length of time and rely on the prepositional force of one’s arguments, if one were not allowed to appropriate next to one’s body other scarce means though homesteading action, i.e., by putting them to use before someone else does, and if such means, and the rights of exclusive control regarding them, were not defined in objective, physical terms. For if no one had the right to control anything at all except his own body, then we would all cease to exist and the problem of justifying norms—as well as all other human problems—simply would not exist. Thus, by virtue of the fact of being alive, then, property rights to other things must be presupposed to be valid too. No one who is alive could argue otherwise. And if a person did not acquire the right of exclusive control over such goods by homesteading action, i.e., by establishing some objective link between a particular person and a particular scarce resource before anybody else had done so, but if instead, late-comers were assumed to have ownership claims to things, then literally no one would be allowed to do anything with anything as one would have to have all of the later-comer’s consent prior to ever doing what one wanted to do. Neither we, our forefathers, nor our progeny could, do or will survive if one were to follow this rule.” 11 ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe, EEPP, 342
For if no one had the right to control anything at all except his own body, then we would all cease to exist and the problem of justifying norms
Yes, but what/who gives one that right? If it is just by his coming up and mixing labor with it, then nothing says I can’t just come up and mix violence with it and take it. It seems as if you want to say homesteading is a natural right, but yet violence isn’t. That never made sense to me, which is why I reject natural rights and believe social contract has a much stronger basis.
instead, late-comers were assumed to have ownership claims to things, then literally no one would be allowed to do anything with anything as one would have to have all of the later-comer’s consent prior to ever doing what one wanted to do. Neither we, our forefathers, nor our progeny could, do or will survive if one were to follow this rule
This ^ is just rhetoric. One just does it, and deals with the consequences later. Luckily we have 6k years of such actions to try and decide what people should/shouldn’t be allowed to do. If we follow this rule Hoppe has said out it would seem logical to me that we have to forcibly give back all of the southwest to mexico and native americans. Every piece of land owned by a noble should go back to the peasants. I mean, Im not against returning theses things to their legitimate owners, but, I think it will prove quite difficult.
Quoting Murray Rothbard, “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. But I have concluded that as important as these questions are, they don’t really cut to the nub of the issue, of the crucial dividing line between us.”
Clearly, he believes the “anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government” debate is a philosophic conflict within the libertarian movement.