To AnCaps: are minarchists really libertarians?

[Autolykos]

@kropotkinbeard

Subjectivity is a given and not really of much interest. Yes, we all have different heads, brains, etc…So what? If your “subjectivity” and my “subjectivity” don’t agree upon what a word means, then there are problems. But, for the most part, we do agree upon the vast majority of words and meanings.

If you actually agree that all definitions are subjective (regardless of how many people agree on which definitions), then what are we arguing about? Apparently it’s really all about what leftists call “power relations”, which is what their version of “raising awareness” is all about. That is, you and your ilk are trying to “gain power” over me and my ilk where we’re somehow forced to use the definitions of “libertarian” and “anarchist” that you and your ilk happen to prefer. Good luck with that.

@kropotkinbeard

I agree with Torsten on this one (and others). Sophistry would be to interpret meaning into words, AND sentences, which isn’t/aren’t there [sic], such as attempting to argue that libertarians are pro-capitalist. But again I think one must be careful as sophistry, at least to me, sort of implies that the person doing it is doing it consciously. This would of course be different than were a person just using the term incorrectly [sic].

Regarding your question, meaning inheres in the fact that when I say “cat” and the idea of a little furry four-legged thing pops into your head, presumably, the [word] has a meaning i.e.something which you can understand. If it didn’t, and perhaps basketball popped into your head upon hearing cat, well, then we have a breakdown of language.

If the image of a basketball popped into my head when I hear “cat”, then it’s still a word with a meaning. It just has a different meaning to me from the meaning it has to you. Nothing about a cat itself requires “cat” to be used to refer to it. Likewise, nothing about “cat” itself requires it to be used to refer to a cat.

@kropotkinbeard

Where have you gotten that Torsten would believe that subjectivity was erased? Did I miss something?

You may have. To me, the notion of “using a word correctly/incorrectly” erases subjectivity from the whole thing. Likewise, it seemed that his appeal to some words having more fixed meanings than others was meant as a counter to the idea that definitions are subjective.

@kropotkinbeard

Again, what does subjectivity have to do with this at all then? Secondly, what do you mean when you say “inherent subjectivity”? Thirdly, it sounds like what you’ve just explained is objectivity, regardless of the sound which is applied to the object. Or are you simply trying to argue that “2+2 = 4” is objective, and must be for everyone, whereas the term “cat” is only subjective because there’s nothing inherent in the notion of cat which is on par with necessary truth of 2+2=4?

Yes, that’s what I’m trying to argue. Like I said before, nothing about “cat” requires it to be used to refer to a cat, and nothing about a cat requires “cat” to be used to refer to it. (Strictly speaking, of course, “2”, “4”, “+”, and “=” are symbols just as much as “cat” is.)