To AnCaps: are minarchists really libertarians?

[Autolykos]

@kropotkinbeard

@Autolykos, I have no problem addressing you by name at all.

Then why didn’t you before?

@kropotkinbeard

And, no, you haven’t struck a nerve with me, and there’s nothing to get back at you for, nor is it my style to play such games. Though had I wanted to you can rest assured that there would be no luck involved [sic]. Relax.

I’ve been relaxed this whole time. But I’m not inclined to believe anything you say here.

@kropotkinbeard

First, there is simply sound. When the sound is attached to some ‘thing’, ‘concept’, i.e.the ‘object’ of the sound, then it becomes a ‘word’. This word is then simply the sound we make when referring to a given object, and should bring to mind that object. After having given the object this sound, we can then use it for communication. ‘Words’ i.e.the sound attached to the objects referred to then have a meaning, assuming that others plan to share the same sounds for the same objects. If not, then communication is simply not possible. If X is calling that object over there a tree, and Y is calling the same object a cup, and this is generalized to all other words, then there is simply no such thing as communication, assuming we understand what communication is, which is I’m assuming to be obvious by the fact that you are probably capable of reading and understanding the words I write now. Again, if not, then please tell me what is taking place. I’m quite interested. We decide that this thing is called a ‘cat’ and we call it ‘cat’. If it has a trunk and wheels, it’s simply not a cat. Similarly, a group of folks decided to call their theories ‘libertarian’ or ‘anarchist’, and which have specific criteria for being either of these, oneof the main ones being that one is anti-hierarchical relations and is anti-capitalist. Therefore, if someone believes that capitalism is compatible with it, then they’re simply not a ‘libertarian’ or ‘anarchist’. It’s quite simple. [Emphasis added.]

The funny thing to me is that you’re supporting my point with most of the above, however unintentionally that may be. However, it’s certainly possible for someone to attach a sound (really a particular combination of sounds) to a different object or concept from the one he’s used to attaching it to. His willingness to do so in any given situation is another matter entirely.

Let’s say I’m trying to communicate with someone and I don’t understand what he’s saying. He points at a closed door and says, “La puerta está cierta.” I shrug my shoulders, not understanding. He walks over to the door and pats it with his hand. “La puerta,” he says. So I figure that’s his way of referring to the door. He opens it and says, “Está abierta.” Then he closes it and says, “Está cierta.” So I figure the latter is his way of referring to the door being closed. “La puerta está cierta,” I say, and he smiles and nods his head. “The door is closed,” I then say, to inform him of my way of referring to the same thing.

Now, which way of referring to the closed door is correct? The concept remains the same, but each of us has a different way of expressing it. In order to communicate, either I must use his way of expressing things, or he must use mine. Who uses which doesn’t matter. What I think you’re doing is insisting that I use your way of expressing certain things rather than vice-versa. You think that should be the case because you believe your way of expressing those things has been around longer. The thing is, I don’t have to care about that - not to the same extent that you do, and in fact, not at all. Furthermore, I don’t have to care about communicating with you, period.

You say that “a group of folks decided to call their theories ‘libertarian’ or ‘anarchist’, and which have specific criteria for being either of these, oneof the main ones being that one is anti-hierarchical relations and is anti-capitalist”. Okay. How does that prevent a separate group of folks from calling their different theories by the same terms? The answer is that it doesn’t. Do you believe the first group somehow owns the words “libertarian” and “anarchist”, thus giving them the right to compel others to use those words the way they want them to be used?

@kropotkinbeard

It’s possible [that I’ve strawmanned your position], but highly doubtful [sic].

You can doubt it all you want. As far as I’m concerned, you’ve definitely strawmanned my position. It’s up to you whether to (try to) convince me otherwise - if you even care about that.

@kropotkinbeard

Yes, I agree. You’re using the term incorrectly [sic] and should fix it [sic]. It’s your problem of having the term wrong [sic], not their’s for having it correct [sic].

Nowhere did I assert that I’d be using the term “bachelor” incorrectly, so your statement that you agree is tantamount to putting words in my mouth. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t do that. As I see it, there’s a big difference between “using a word in a way that differs from one or more other people’s usage” and “using a word in a (factually) incorrect manner”. The former is possible, while the latter is not. Words don’t attach themselves to objects/concepts, and objects/concepts don’t attach themselves to words.

@kropotkinbeard

Not at all. In fact, I agreed with you. I said that if someone is using a non-standard definition that they should explain it clearly as possible so that those whom understand it in its standard form can1)know what this person is talking about 2)wonder why they’ve decided to change the definition. Of course that’s assuming that they are even aware that they’re using is unconventionally, which, in the case with “anarcho”-capitalists, I don’t think they do. If they do I’ve yet to meet a single one who has claimed that they were using the term in an unconventional way. This would mean either that 1)they actually didn’t know they were using it unconventionally or 2)they knew that they were and were simply hiding the fact for some odd reason. Again, I’m interested in precisely one might do this. Perhaps it’s another ruse as is the NAP, as if “non-aggression” were really the issue, which it’s not [sic]. But that’s a different difficulty.

First off, I’ll again note that I see a big difference between using a word unconventionally and using a word incorrectly. To me, the former in no way implies the latter. Second, what exactly makes the definitions of “libertarian” and “anarchist” that you happen to like the conventional definitions? As I see it, those definitions are no more conventional than the ones that I happen to like. Furthermore, just what “convention” are you talking about here? That is, what specific group of people are you placing under consideration?

@kropotkinbeard

“Inherent truth”? I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re talking about. We haven’t even started discussing ‘truth’ yet. We can though if you wish. We could start with why one would consciously not wish to use a term correctly [sic], and what role “truth” plays in their deceit [sic], again, assuing that they’re aware that they’re even doing it, which, as I said, I don’t believe they are. And words are absolutely nothing BUT for convention, which is different than opinion [sic]. My entire argument has been that language is for nothing but communication. This is why we decide for words to mean certain things. This is why you can read and understand what I’m writing right now. Has nothing to do with the little squiggles typed onto the page. It has to do with your understanding what I’m trying to get you to understand via use of those squiggles called words, which also have sounds, which are equally as arbitrary. So, it’s quite important that we agree upon what the squiggles and sounds refer to. If not, again, you could understand nothing of what I’ve just written. It’s therefore a good idea [sic] that when I say I want to drink a ‘beer’, a term agreed upon by most people, that you don’t hand me a ‘hammer’ a sound which is not used for that thing with Bass Ale written in the side of the bottle. Similarly, when I use the term ‘libertarian’ or ‘anarchist’ it’s a good idea that you understand that this means [sic] a person who is anti-capitalist, as has always been the case [sic]. Or, as you say, you can teach all of those folks who are still using the conventional/traditional meaning [sic], as created by the folks who used it that way, that you’ve using it unconventionally. However, I don’t really believe this to be the problem. I believe the problem lies in the fact that those using it unconventionally are clueless that this is what they are doing. It is therefore for this reason that I feel compelled to help straighten out their misunderstanding [sic]. And for free! [Emphasis added.]

Apparently you do know what I’m talking about with my use of the phrase “inherent truth”. But how is convention different from opinion? I see no qualitative difference - a convention is simply a situation where “most” people have the same or similar opinions on something. How is one bound to follow a given convention? He isn’t. It’s not incorrect in a factual sense to not follow a given convention. Factual correctness/incorrectness simply doesn’t apply to that.

Furthermore, I don’t think the convention you have in mind is that commonly known as “the English language”. Rather, I think the convention you have in mind is the group of people who use the same definitions for “libertarian” and “anarchist” that you use. I imagine that’s a much smaller convention than “the English language”. So as I see it, this all boils down to you and your ilk wanting to control how people in general define those words. The funny thing is (at least IMO), such control is impossible, so you’re chasing after an illusion. Once again, good luck with that.