Rothbard libertarian

[AdrianHealey]

Just my 2 cents.

My take is that Strangeloop is sort of correct when saying that the world ‘libertarian’ falls under the ‘family resemblance theory’ of Wittgenstein. Can anyone of you give, out of hand, a solid definition of the word ‘furniture’ that covers everything you would call ‘furniture’? Probably not; but it doesn’t mean that you can’t recognize furniture. With this there are some black and white things (an airplane clearly is not furniture, a couch clearly is) but there is some grey (a closet, a cupboard, a bed…?) In any case; with the word ‘libertarian’ there is something similar. Sometimes 2 people with (sort of) the same policies could be considered a libertarian or a free market conservative; depending on his emphasis or depending on the person that is assessing their ideology.

You could call anyone a libertarian who takes the presumption of liberty - i.e. voluntary, contractual relationships and property - and is willing to carefully argue why (in some cases, if any) he differs from it. In this definition; someone like Milton Friedman or Hayek would be libertarians. If you say that a libertarian ‘must’ be someone who (at most) believes in the minimal state (courts, police and national defense); than, obviously, Friedman and Hayek are out. I do think there is no solid definition that everyone agrees too. Most Americans (at fee, Mises, Ihs and students for liberty conferences) I’ve met take one of these 2 (implicit) assumptions. Or this is, at least, my judgement.

Depending on my mood and the person I argue with; I change my take on the word. Because of the way the word is used in my native language (Dutch); I however limit ‘libertarian’ to a smaller tent crowd; while using the word ‘classical liberal’ for the big tent. (Some ‘libertarians’ in this definition are a part of the ‘classical liberal’ movement.)

It’s not theoretically or logically impossible to have a once and for all absolute meaning of the word ‘libertarian’; but in general it is the case that ‘ideologies’ are more like family resemblance definitions that strict definitions.

[yuberries]

^ to steal from liberté, you need not to ask yourself questions that are impossible to answer. All knowledge is only knowledge to the best of our epistemology. So… uh, no need to hold such high standards of truth.

What liberty student said isn’t anything so inconsistent and undefinable that warranted this silly thread. It is analytical in fact, non-libertarians cant be called libertarians.

[StrangeLoop]

To claim that “non-libertarians” can’t be called libertarians suggests the law of identity, but it’s much more difficult when we aren’t discussing easily quantifiable objects (e.g., an apple). When is someone “black,” for instance? When they’re not non-black? It’s completely unclear according to that standard.

[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, for example, but it’s not inherently contradictory. A libertarian might claim there is a positive externality produced by education and funding should thus be supplemented from the US Treasury in order to boost social benefit, but that’s not contradictory; it’s using economic logic to endorse a good outcome. I would never be a libertarian if free markets were less efficient than socialism; I do not a priori believe in the NAP. Hence, libertarians that are consequentialist might have some systematic departures from anarcho-capitalism.

[yuberries]

@StrangeLoop

To claim that “non-libertarians” can’t be called libertarians suggests the law of identity, but it’s much more difficult when we aren’t discussing easily quantifiable objects (e.g., an apple). When is someone “black,” for instance? When they’re not non-black? It’s completely unclear according to that standard.

Yes strangeloop I agree its hard, but instead of offering a definition of your own, you decide to go badmouth LS’s

That is the definition of being a word bitch IMO nothing personal…

[StrangeLoop]

@AdrianHealey

You could call anyone a libertarian who takes the presumption of liberty - i.e. voluntary, contractual relationships and property - and is willing to carefully argue why (in some cases, if any) he differs from it. In this definition; someone like Milton Friedman or Hayek would be libertarians.

I think that’s much closer to the truth.

[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

[StrangeLoop]

yuberries, he specifically asked for a debate.

[apehead]

@yuberries

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

What? LOL, jeez, someone’s a little butt-hurt from our last discussion.

[yuberries]

^ A little bit

@StrangeLoop

yuberries, he specifically asked for a debate.

Yeah, after you guys were all like “you can’t define libertarian like that!! it’s too absolute! hur hur”

[StrangeLoop]

From my re-reading of that discussion, I have a different interpretation.

But, I don’t want to get into a debate about “absolute interpretation” now.

[yuberries]

NP, it’s clear at this point that it’s completely semantics

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Why always so pointless? Red herrings seem to be your forte

Save the intellectual terrorism for someone who doesn’t know any better.

And why not? Because you’re not a libertarian?

I don’t support a system that didn’t protect women, minorities, and poor people’s right to vote,and also supported slavery (or at least didn’t ban it) yet I don’t believe in liberty. Ok, nice logic there

You obviously missed the memo that taxation is theft, and that for eg. the income tax - work half the year for the state, partial slavery alright

Pretty sure I didn’t. Income tax is irrelevant to the issue. I clearly said, I support neither the one we use now, the original constitution, nor the articles. And beside income tax < universal suffrage and emancipation.

Giving everyone the right to vote? Slavery for the minority

I would love to see your argument behind that.

Does follow, was relevent, and not even close to being an ad hominem. It was questions as to why you brought up what you did.

How is you putting the words in my mouth that I think Lincoln ended slavery, relevant, or following from its premise?

And what paper “build around disenfrachisement”, can you at least attempt to make some kind of argument

um… the Constitution? I have made the same argument this whole time, I do not support a piece of paper built around disenfranchising minorities and women. Can I make that any clearer? The original constitution is no better than the one we have now, in fact, I find it far worse.

You still don’t understand I’m not talking about rolling back history and all that capital accumulation etc., right?

No, you’re talking about going back to a document that supports slavery because you are taxed on your income. Am I correct there? I would love to be so convenient as you to be able to disconnect history from itself. Unfortunately, I’m not.

Do you know anything about economics?

I know a little. I never claimed to be an economist, tho I always try to understand it a little better than I previously did. But, serious question, what does my knowledge of economics have to do with whether I would support an anti-woman, anti-minority, pro slavery constitution?

[DD5]

@StrangeLoop

Esuric, liberty student’s “line of reasoning” is simply asserting this his definition of libertarianism is ultimately correct; he is not supported by a consensus of libertarians,

@StrangeLoop

nor is his I-can-define-it-how-I-want approach validated by even basic linguistic research. Once again, my “meaning nihilism” (as it has sometimes been called) is irrelevant:

So many exchanges and you still cannot grasp what the debate is over.

Hint: It’s not over linguistics! or cognitive science.

[StrangeLoop]

DD5, I am challenging the idea that definitions are so easily prescribed.

[DD5]

@StrangeLoop

DD5, I am challenging the idea that definitions are so easily prescribed.

Then you’re challenging nobody but an imaginary strawman.

Definitions simply have to be made for the sake of argumentation and then consistently applied for an argument to be logically sound.

A triangle is defined as a geometric shape with 3 sides. This definition then allows you to make the logical claim: The sum of all angles in a triangle equal 180 degrees. And you can set out to prove it.

Now, if it so happens that some people start to use the word triangle to describe squares, that doesn’t make triangle (when not referred to a square) not have a sumo of all angles equal to 180.

This is why it is vital that all terms are properly defined before making a sound argument. Precisely to remove any ambiguity due to language. Not to prescribe it.

All you were asked is to define your terms, which you refused to do. Nobody was set out to prescribe to you how to use the term libertertrian. Only to show you that you are using it in a logically inconsistent manner. The triangle, according to you can have 180 or 360 depending on who you ask. Nonsense! define the triangle and remove any ambiguity. If you are not willing to do that, then you cannot claim to be making a logically valid argument.

[StrangeLoop]

Deriving geometric proofs from formal axiomization is radically different than attempting to prescribe an “absolute meaning” for an ideology.

For the sake of any argument, I agree that terms should be clarified, but that wasn’t the problem: rather, a small group was claiming “dishonesty” for all those that didn’t conform to libertarian anarchism.

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.

[DD5]

@StrangeLoop

Deriving geometric proofs from formal axiomization is radically different than attempting to prescribe an “absolute meaning” for an ideology.

Show me where anybody has attempted to prescribe an “absolute meaning” to anything. And just to save you the precious time, if you think that bringing forward some of the arguments made to you regarding Rothbard and Libertarian, look closely and make sure that what is being argued is not about the prescribed use of the terms, but if they are used by you consistently and coherently, i.e., the “triangle” cannot be both a 3 side and a 4 side geometrical shape.

@StrangeLoop

If I wanted to offer a general definition of libertarian, I would simply claim someone that endorses as much of a free market as he believes technically practicable.

Fine, but this makes the term practically useless. It’s like defining a triangle as any geometric shape, period! It renders useless in the sphere of geometric proofs.

You will then be asked what is the difference between a libertarian and a socialist, for which you should reply: nothing!

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Have you never heard of libertarian socialists DD5?

This is what we’re talking about…

[DD5]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

Have you never heard of libertarian socialists DD5?

This is what we’re talking about…

It has become quite obvious that you, and I suspect also strangeloop, flat out reject logic.

It is a waste of time to engage people in debate who reject the use of reason and logic.