To AnCaps: are minarchists really libertarians?

[Autolykos]

@kropotkinbeard

Didn’t say you said it did. And, actually, yes, most words do have relatively fixed meanings.

“Relatively fixed” is a way for you to have your semantic cake and eat it too, it seems. If words have only relatively fixed meanings, that means their meanings aren’t fixed at all - that indeed their meanings can vary from one person to another, and from one point in time to another. The fact that you implicitly admit this supports our point that definitions are, formally speaking, arbitrary.

@kropotkinbeard

If a person “thinks” that a bachelor is a married man, then 1)they are incorrect about what they thought it meant or 2)bachelor doesn’t mean single man.

Or he’s simply using the word “bachelor” differently from most English speakers. There’s no one necessary meaning for any combination of sounds called a “word”.

@kropotkinbeard

And I agree with your statement that it doesn’t make sense for one to insert their definition into what someone else was saying. This is the whole point of what I’m arguing. When one uses the term “libertarian” or “anarchism”, yet thinks that capitalism is somehow included, they have inserted a meaning into the terms which do not work. This is why such odd conclusions come from a great deal of what they assert.

Obviously, thinking that capitalism is included in the term “libertarian” or “anarchism” simply means defining that term differently from how you’re defining it. Logically speaking, neither definition is more correct than the other. You simply don’t want (what you call) capitalism to be associated with those terms, and so you’re trying to force those who do associate it with those terms to stop doing so. Good luck with that.

@kropotkinbeard

But to use your logic, again, we could simply refer to “anarcho”-capitalists as “cheese”, and it doesn’t matter as long as one understands my use of the term “cheese”. And if they don’t understand my use [after explaining it to them], then, well, that’s just their problem.

That’s right. Nice try at a reductio ad absurdum.

@kropotkinbeard

Yes, you said it was my problem. It isn’t. If someone is referring to Tom, a married man, as a bachelor, then that is their problem. My only problem is deciding how to deal with them. I could tell the person that Tom was married again, and provide the evidence to support my claim. If they continue to insist that he’s a bachelor, then I’ll have to go to Plan B and call a psychiatrist.

Or you could go to Plan C and ask this person what he means by “bachelor”.

@kropotkinbeard

Uhhh…Yes, I guess I could go around calling what I see by labels not usually used for them and see how far that gets me. Words are used primarily for communication last I checked. It sort of helps if folks have some shared notion of what the terms mean. Regarding “nonstandard definitions”, this again supports my position. People referring to themselves as “libertarian and capitalist” or “anarcho”-capitalist are using nonstandard definitions, which are to a large extent the exact opposite of the standard definition. Again, unless they wish to only communicate with the other few folks who are also using the terms incorrectly [sic], it would probably be better if they simply stuck to the usual meaning of the terms. This way, when they actually meet folks who are using the terms correctly [sic], these folks won’t stand there scratching their heads wondering what language this person is speaking. “It resembles English, but nothing they’re saying makes sense, or is related to the real world.” Again, there are reasons why we use words.

I think there’s a huge difference between calling a definition “non-standard” and calling it “incorrect”, unless you’re simply defining the latter to equate to the former. Now my question to you is, can you prove that your definitions of “libertarian” and “anarchist” are currently the standard definitions?

@kropotkinbeard

Sorry, but I simply believe that words, or at least most words, have actual meanings and defintions, and that they should be used appropriately, and for specific reasons.

How does one measure, let alone prove, which definition is the “actual” one for a given word?

@kropotkinbeard

It wasn’t an apology. “Under the impression that words have objective meanings”? Uhhh…Firstly, I don’t see it as a shame at all. Secondly, yes, I’d like to think that most words do have objective meanings to some degree or there would be no way for us to be communicating in the first place. We obviously agree that certain words have meanings which are at least somewhat objective or you wouldn’t have even been able to make such an assertion in the first place, nor I understand what you’ve said. Should have thought his one through a little more first. I mean, did you understand the words I just used, or were they just subjective utterances meaning one thing to me and another to you?

Again, you’re trying to have your semantic cake and eat it too by using phrases such as “at least somewhat objective”. As far as I’m concerned, either something is objective or it isn’t - there’s no such thing as “halfway objective” or the like.

Something can be subjective (i.e. exist entirely within the mind) and yet be identical for two or more individuals. That in no way eliminates its subjectivity. But I suspect you’re using definitions for “objective” and “subjective” that are different from mine. That’s fine with me, except I have no idea what your definitions are.

@kropotkinbeard

That the term “anarchist” has been hijacked [sic] is a non-issue in my opinion. Non-issue in that it has happened (at least by some). One need only briefly look at any number of places on this very website. The more interesting issue is why folks would use it, and what the purpose is of their using it. Is it simply because the anti-government aspect of anarchism appeals to them? This alone is not nearly enough to be able to claim the title.

That’s your opinion. Obviously others disagree. Can you make us think the way you do? Good luck with that.

@kropotkinbeard

Most ‘actual’ anarchists would be spinning in their graves were they to see how the term is being used now i.e.as the virtual opposite of that which intended.

I, for one, couldn’t care less.

@kropotkinbeard

Again, if one wished to begin referring to those who consider themselves “pacifist” as “Nazi”, well, I have a feeling that the pacifists wouldn’t look upon this very highly, nor just sit back and accept the new term, casually proclaiming that it’s just a term, and terms change over time. I mean, I doubt they would.

That’s fine, but they can’t stop people from thinking certain things.

@kropotkinbeard

Then you agree with what I’ve been saying? Why the arguments then? The thing is that “libertarian anarchists” are the original, anti-capitalist, anarchists. Libertarian anarchists don’t need to change the meaning of the term as they’ve been using it, correctly [sic], for over 150 years. The only folks trying to change what the terms mean are propertarians whom have attempted to change the meaning into the opposite of what the words mean [sic]. This is a good thing? Pro-capitalist propertarians referring to themselves as anarchists, the opposite of what they are [sic], is a good thing? Hmm…Interesting. But I guess since words can just mean whatever you want them to, which actually does come in helpful when wallowing around [sic] in the “Austrian school” and many of its interesting notions, having little to do with the real world [sic], then you can just call anything anything.

Perhaps you’d like to explain how “pro-capitalist propertarians” can’t be anti-government. Actually, I bet I know why - because you believe that the state is necessary for capitalism and even property itself to exist, right? Can you please explain your reasoning behind that notion?

@kropotkinbeard

Uhhh…They may know what they are “conceptually”, but they are not anarchists realistically [sic]. They should at a minimum know this much [sic]. They use the term anarchist, and they are using it incorrectly [sic]. If a five year old calls himself a man, he is simply not using the term “man” correctly [sic], regardless of what he believes it to be “conceptually”.

That depends. Is the five-year-old, in calling himself a “man”, saying that he’s older than he is? Or has he defined “man” to mean “someone who’s five years old”?

@kropotkinbeard

Needless to say that there are few, actually, none that I’ve met on his site, that have read any anarchist writings at all. Well, I believe this to be a serious problem on several levels. One is that they’re simply ignorant of the history of what they’re talking about. Secondly, they’re referring to themselves and their positions inaccurately [sic], and often fight to maintain their newly found status among like-minded “anarchists”, which aren’t anarchists at all [sic]. Thirdly, they end up making claims which they believe are “anarchist”, but which aren’t at all [sic], and are often the opposite [sic]. There are more reasons, but that’s enough for now.

Translation: “WILL YOU JUST STOP CALLING YOURSELVES BY THESE WORDS ALREADY?!?!?!”

…

No.

@kropotkinbeard

Yes, I haven’t said a word about them referring (or not) to their positions “completely accurately”. I’m sure they have the positions they have. They simply aren’t anarchists [sic], nor are their positions anarchist [sic]. That’s all. They are not Martians. They are not eggs (though close [sic]). They are not many things. Anarchism simply happens to be one of them, and it would behoove them to know this [sic]. After all, every ‘actual’ [sic] libertarian/anarchist, as well as most socialists, communists, and others are well aware of what they are, and none would claim them to be “anarchist”.

It depends on the definition used for “anarchist”. Yours is simply different from e.g. mine. But it seems you expect to come here and give us the proverbial evil eye, and we’ll just roll over and do what you want. Once again… good luck with that.