Why anti-capitalist, i.e. why not anti-authoritarian and capitalist?
This is supposedly a citation of the use of ‘anarchy’, spelled ‘anarchie’, in the Oxford English Dictionary, which I have at my house. I’m not sure what the two numbers are for. I need to get a users guide. These dictiionaries are very complex.
1539 Taverner Erasm. Prov. (1552) 43 This unleful lyberty or lycence of the multytude is called an Anarchie.
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."
No, “relatively fixed” means exactly what it says i.e.relatively fixed. But then again you can understand the words I’ve just written, yes? Well, the reason for this ability to understand is precisely because the meanings of the words are either completely fixed, or relatively fixed. But if you’d care to explain how you can understand what I’m writing without words having a fixed meaning, please show me. I sure hope I can understand those ‘things’ (words) you’re planning to use.
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”.
Of course. He’s using it incorrectly. The word “bachelor” has a meaning, just like the words do which I’m using right now and which I assume you’re able to read and understand. It means “unmarried man”.
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.”
Yes, yes, I understand the not-so-deep concept that one person can use a word one way and another another way, and this is fine if you’re discussing what the definition of “love” is or something like this. However, when something has been decided/agreed upon to have a certain label attached, then that’s what it is. We call those things in your pocket coins for a reason. And, yes, someone can call them shells if they wish, just to prove that they don’t have to use language correctly, but then again, why would they? Language is for communication, and they’d be consciously trying not to, which, again, is fine. They should just not pretend that they’re using language for it’s intended use. They can also go sit in their car and just wait for it to go somewhere on its own. But they shouldn’t refer to what they’re doing as “driving”.
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.
Thanks!
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”.”
Yeah, I could. And then when he says that a bachelor is that thing which he just drove up in I can tell him that it’s actually a car, and that his use of the word bachelor is incorrect, regardless of what he believes. He simply has two choices. Use the term as it’s used, or continue using the language incorrectly.
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?”
For the most part I am using both interchangeably.And while it may sound less harsh to refer to the person calling a baseball a rhino as using a “non-standard” term, which is obvious, it IS also incorrect, again, assuming words mean anything. I’m well aware of the notion of words as simply being nothing more than labels attached to concepts, objects, etc…and that there’s not ‘really’ such a ‘thing’ as a “cat”, but rather we have just decided to refer to that thing on the sofa as “a cat”. And I agree with this. And it’s exactly for this reason that you can understand what I’m writing right now. Perhaps not a single word I’ve just written ‘really’ has any inherent meaning, but this is irrelevant. They do have enough of a meaning to where you can understand what I’m attempting to communicate, yes? You can understand the words I’m writing right now, yes? Regarding whether or not I can prove that “my definition” of “libertarian” and “anarchist” are currently the standard definitions?", yes, but firstly we need to get something straight. It is ‘not’ “my definitions”. I didn’t make them up. They were created prior to my birth. This being the case, I can, if I wish to know what the terms mean, look back at the history of where they came from, etc…Having done this I will then know what the meanings of the terms are. Therefore, I’m simply using the terms as they’ve been used since their inception into the language. And there are many places where other folks can find out if they wish to know. You know, just like me. Or they can continue to use the term incorrectly. It’s up to them. They should just be conscious of the fact that they’re using the term incorrectly.
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?”
By reading a sentence as I have just done and understanding the shared meanings of those scribblings, and by assuming that you, in turn, will be able to read the scribblings I’m making now and understand what I’m saying. We can talk about what “understanding” means next if you wish.
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.”
Perhaps. That or I was just trying to be sympathetic to your position. And I see no reason why some words cannot be objective and others not. Fire is hot is an objective fact. Love is a good thing is an opinion which cannot really be claimed with much certainty (perhaps bad example). It’s irrelevant if one has more objective certainty than the other. We still need to use agreed upon terms to even try and explore the differences, or weed out and describe things.
“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.”
But given we’re using a the same language, and the words being used have approximate meanings, approximate in the sense that you do at least somewhat understand what I’m saying, yes, then we can figure out how and what the other person is attempting to communicate. No shared language, no way of communicating, much less understanding. So, if you’ve just been able to recognize that the way we may be using words is differently, it entails that you have understood, and that the words I’ve used are objectively understood.
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.”
No, it has nothing to do with an “opinion”. It has to do with easily verifiable fact. And if one wishes to know the facts they’ll have to pick up a book and read so that they can find out for themselves. I’ve tried spoon-feeding them, but when one is indoctrinated with a belief system it’s not all that easy. I’ve worked with many ex-cult members, and working with them is not really all that different than educating someone who is using a term incorrectly, but believes themselves to be using it correctly. Has nothing to do with luck either. It simply has to do with whether or not their indoctrination allows for them to take in information which doesn’t conform to their belief system. If they’re not they’re not too far gone then it’s relatively easy. They pick up just about any book on anarchism or libertarianism, read for a few minutes, take in the information, scratch their heads and wonder how on earth they’d ever come up with the incorrect way they’d been using the term, or, if more severely indoctrinated, simply refuse to look at anything which may conflict with their belief system. In fact, it gets worse. Even if you can get an indoc to actually looking at the relevant data, they simply cannot understand it much of the time as the cognitive dissonance is often too great. I’ve seen this happen literally hundred of times.
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.
|
Ronald Scott |
|
to me |
Re: To AnCaps: are minarchists really libertarians?
By Autolykos in Political Theory
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."
No, “relatively fixed” means exactly what it says i.e.relatively fixed. But then again you can understand the words I’ve just written, yes? Well, the reason for this ability to understand is precisely because the meanings of the words are either completely fixed, or relatively fixed. But if you’d care to explain how you can understand what I’m writing without words having a fixed meaning, please show me. I sure hope I can understand those ‘things’ (words) you’re planning to use.
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”.
Of course. He’s using it incorrectly. The word “bachelor” has a meaning, just like the words do which I’m using right now and which I assume you’re able to read and understand. It means “unmarried man”.
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.”
Yes, yes, I understand the not-so-deep concept that one person can use a word one way and another another way, and this is fine if you’re discussing what the definition of “love” is or something like this. However, when something has been decided/agreed upon to have a certain label attached, then that’s what it is. We call those things in your pocket coins for a reason. And, yes, someone can call them shells if they wish, just to prove that they don’t have to use language correctly, but then again, why would they? Language is for communication, and they’d be consciously trying not to, which, again, is fine. They should just not pretend that they’re using language for it’s intended use. They can also go sit in their car and just wait for it to go somewhere on its own. But they shouldn’t refer to what they’re doing as “driving”.
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.
Thanks!
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”.”
Yeah, I could. And then when he says that a bachelor is that thing which he just drove up in I can tell him that it’s actually a car, and that his use of the word bachelor is incorrect, regardless of what he believes. He simply has two choices. Use the term as it’s used, or continue using the language incorrectly.
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?”
For the most part I am using both interchangeably.And while it may sound less harsh to refer to the person calling a baseball a rhino as using a “non-standard” term, which is obvious, it IS also incorrect, again, assuming words mean anything. I’m well aware of the notion of words as simply being nothing more than labels attached to concepts, objects, etc…and that there’s not ‘really’ such a ‘thing’ as a “cat”, but rather we have just decided to refer to that thing on the sofa as “a cat”. And I agree with this. And it’s exactly for this reason that you can understand what I’m writing right now. Perhaps not a single word I’ve just written ‘really’ has any inherent meaning, but this is irrelevant. They do have enough of a meaning to where you can understand what I’m attempting to communicate, yes? You can understand the words I’m writing right now, yes? Regarding whether or not I can prove that “my definition” of “libertarian” and “anarchist” are currently the standard definitions?", yes, but firstly we need to get something straight. It is ‘not’ “my definitions”. I didn’t make them up. They were created prior to my birth. This being the case, I can, if I wish to know what the terms mean, look back at the history of where they came from, etc…Having done this I will then know what the meanings of the terms are. Therefore, I’m simply using the terms as they’ve been used since their inception into the language. And there are many places where other folks can find out if they wish to know. You know, just like me. Or they can continue to use the term incorrectly. It’s up to them. They should just be conscious of the fact that they’re using the term incorrectly.
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?”
By reading a sentence as I have just done and understanding the shared meanings of those scribblings, and by assuming that you, in turn, will be able to read the scribblings I’m making now and understand what I’m saying. We can talk about what “understanding” means next if you wish.
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.”
Perhaps. That or I was just trying to be sympathetic to your position. And I see no reason why some words cannot be objective and others not. Fire is hot is an objective fact. Love is a good thing is an opinion which cannot really be claimed with much certainty (perhaps bad example). It’s irrelevant if one has more objective certainty than the other. We still need to use agreed upon terms to even try and explore the differences, or weed out and describe things.
“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.”
But given we’re using a the same language, and the words being used have approximate meanings, approximate in the sense that you do at least somewhat understand what I’m saying, yes, then we can figure out how and what the other person is attempting to communicate. No shared language, no way of communicating, much less understanding. So, if you’ve just been able to recognize that the way we may be using words is differently, it entails that you have understood, and that the words I’ve used are objectively understood.
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.”
No, it has nothing to do with an “opinion”. It has to do with easily verifiable fact. And if one wishes to know the facts they’ll have to pick up a book and read so that they can find out for themselves. I’ve tried spoon-feeding them, but when one is indoctrinated with a belief system it’s not all that easy. I’ve worked with many ex-cult members, and working with them is not really all that different than educating someone who is using a term incorrectly, but believes themselves to be using it correctly. Has nothing to do with luck either. It simply has to do with whether or not their indoctrination allows for them to take in information which doesn’t conform to their belief system. If they’re not they’re not too far gone then it’s relatively easy. They pick up just about any book on anarchism or libertarianism, read for a few minutes, take in the information, scratch their heads and wonder how on earth they’d ever come up with the incorrect way they’d been using the term, or, if more severely indoctrinated, simply refuse to look at anything which may conflict with their belief system. In fact, it gets worse. Even if you can get an indoc to actually looking at the relevant data, they simply cannot understand it much of the time as the cognitive dissonance is often too great. I’ve seen this happen literally hundred of times.
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.”
Great! I could care less that you care less. Your turn.
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.”
I said nothing about stopping people from thinking certain things. I’m talking about educating them. In fact, this is doing the opposite of stopping them ‘from’ thinking. It’s making them think, and hopefully learn something. It happens all the time. I’ve had several people, once they’ve learned what “libertarian” and “anarchism” mean change their positions just as I’m willing to do if offered convincing evidence.
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.”
I’ve never even hinted that they couldn’t. I believe they are, or at least think they are. I said nothing about “pro-capitalist propertarians” not being able to be anti-government. I said they could be anarchists or libertarians, both of which are also anti-government, and neither of which are pro-capitalist. Simply being anti-government does not in make one a libertarian or anarchist, though propertarians often mistakenly believe it does. It’s okay though. Most are still young enough to learn.
“Actually, I bet I know why”
You’re betting against a position I don’t have. Probably a mistake.
“…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?”
This is your notion, not mine. That being said, the only capitalism which has existed so far has most definitely had a state, or at least in any developed country. There are a few places like Somalia which haven’t. So, that’s not “my reasoning” behind that notion. That’s yours. Renting oneself out for exploitation i.e.wage slavery, is a hierarchical relationship and therefore deprives one of liberty. This is sort of like what one learns in Anarchism/Libertarianism 101 class. I recommend reading a few books on anarchism/libertarianism before trying to argue against what you think it is via capitalism. But then again I haven’t really met more than a couple of phony libertarians or better yet “anarcho”-capitalists who have read a single book on anarchism, or think they have because they read a book by Rothbard or someone similar, himself being clueless to the topic.
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”?”
He’s wrong either way. But given that he’s only five there is still a chance he can learn the what the correct definition of a man is.
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?!?!?!””
Huh? “Calling myself by these words”? What does that mean? I’m not talking about myself in the previous paragraph. Perhaps a disconnect in our “subjective interpretation of words”?
“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.”
Yes, yours in incorrect. You should fix that so that it will make more sense when speaking with other people who are also using the term correctly. And if you’re calling that furry little four-legged thing over there a car, then you should correct that as well. Hey, I’m just trying to help. And why on sure earth would I need to give you an evil eye because of your using a term incorrectly? It’s more of a feeling sorry for and embarrassment sort of thing. You know, as if you saw a guy screaming that that thing he drove up in was a cat. It’s up to you if you wish to continue using a term incorrectly. I don’t expect anything. In fact, I’m quite sure most here won’t. That’s there problem, not mine.
So, were you planning to tell much how it is that we’re able to communicate if there is no objectivity in language?
kropotkinbeard,
Words don’t have fixed meanings. They have commonly accepted and understood meanings, which is why most people who not only speak the same language, but the same dialect, have little problem with confusion over definitions of words. It is odd that you don’t recognize this, as many modern languages are very different from their predecessors. Consider modern English with middle English or even old English. It’s the same with French and German and really all languages. These languages could not have evolved had definitions had fixed meanings. Consider a word as simple as the. Even “the” evolved over time. It was not always “the”. This could not have happened had there been such a thing as fixed, objective meanings.
Regarding correct definitions, when we say something is an incorrect definition or incorrect use, we are saying that it is not the common usage, and depending upon how off you are from the standard use, people may very well have no idea what you are trying to communicate. Let’s take the word “faggot”. Perhaps you would like to use this word to mean a bundle of sticks, as that would be the original meaning. But the vast majority of people in the US will think you are talking pejoratively about homosexuals. And of course, in certain other English speaking countries, they very may well think you are talking about cigarettes.
Quite simply, you are wrong. All words change over time, some less than others. But they all change. All you have been doing is expressing that you want the original meanings of words to be observed. Okay. Great. I fully expect you to start campaigning for Americans and British to start using “faggot” to mean “bundle of sticks”.
Words (or phrases) have meanings by conventions. There are some other factors, too and of course some words may change meanings over time or may have different meanings in different contexts.
Interesting to see Austrian Libertarians discussing Hermeneutics and related subjects.
That is to say, groups of people agree to impute certain meanings to certain words. There’s nothing necessary about the particular agreements made, the particular meanings imputed, or the particular words to which those meanings are imputed.
QFT.
this is a minority position within united states actual military, cf H. John Poole and manuever warfare, also note that the chinese are conducting non-aggressive warfare against the united states right now.
One can’t be anti-authoritarian and capitalist as the capitalist relationship is a hierarchical relationship. Period. Now, there are several ways to deal with this inconvient fact if you’re a capitalist looking for a way to square a circle, that is, hijack the term libertarian/anarchist and marry it to capitalism. One way is simply to pretend that the relationship is not hierarchical, when it is nothing but, unless, perhaps, one is working strictly for themselves, which is almost never the case. But this would simply be delusional. Another way is to simply ignore this inherent conflict, take the anti-authoritarian aspects (thinking of them as being primarily anti-state) of anarchism/libertarianism, and pretend that this is “libertarian” or “anarchist”, which it is not. We’ve already had a good demonstration here by a (linguistic relativist) fellow beliving that words mean nothing, and that calling oneself bachelor, if he is married, isn’t a problem for him, but rather a problem for the folks who think he’s using the term “bachelor” incorrectly. If you assume this “logic”, yeah, you could be a capitalist and anti-authoritarian in the same way as you could be married and a bachelor.
“” That is to say, groups of people agree to impute certain meanings to certain words. There’s nothing necessary about the particular agreements made, the particular meanings imputed, or the particular words to which those meanings are imputed."
Actually, yes, there is something ‘necessary’ if the people are planning on communicating with one another i.e.the point of language in the first place. So, when writing the sentence and expressing the ideas which you just have, and assuming that you expected people to be able to read and understand them, then you HAVE demonstrated the ‘necessity’ of imputing words with particular meanings. Otherwise no one would know what you were trying to commincate.
“” Words (or phrases) have meanings by conventions. There are some other factors, too and of course some words may change meanings over time or may have different meanings in different contexts.
Interesting to see Austrian Libertarians discussing Hermeneutics and related subjects. "
I agree. But what is an “Austrian Libertarian”? I thought that those of the “Austrian school” believed that capitalism and markets were the highest expression of “liberty” and “freedom”. This has nothing to do with libertarianism other than being its opposite. Why don’t they call themselves “propertarians” so as not to confuse the children who follow freedomainradio and think themselves to be libertarians or anarchists, but aren’t. It’s anti-educational.
Actually, your statements about words not having fixed meanings I have no problem with, and I’ve already spoken to. The notion that the term faggot and cigarette can have different meanings simply has little or nothing to do with what I’m arguing. In order for people to communicate at all there must must be a huge degree of agreement between words and their meanings or there would simply be no way of communicating. And I’m not into telepathy, so if that’s what you’re promoting, then we probably have nothing to talk about, as talking would entail using words, and, well, I’d be the only one assuming them to have a function or meaning.
So, yes, words can change their meanings and use over time. This is an almost invisibly small portion of what occurs in language as well, and is therefore virtually irrlevant. The point is, were there not enough agreement that words mean certain things, then you and I would not be able to communicate right now. Whether words change over time is 100% irrelevant. I’ve alredy dealt with this. And once all the words have transformed into having other meanings, perhaps even the opposite of what they used to have, it’s still irrelevant as these uses would then be the common language, and we’d still have to have agreement as to what they mean in order to communicate. So, actually, no, I’m not simply wrong. You simply don’t understand language very well. Wait! DId you understand anything I’ve just written? If so, then you’re supporting my position. If not, then I’d love to know how you do it.
Should read “cigarette” and “faggot” have the same meaning though different labels.
hierarchy != rulers
Anarchy means “without rulers”, not “without a hierarchy”.
I would like you to provide some evidence for this, because as far as I can tell, this is a baseless accusation and a false one at that.
You should read what you are quoting more carefully, as it is clear that you have no idea what that passage means. There is no necessary reason why gay must mean either happy or homosexual. Gay means what people say it means. If gay is used to mean happy, then it means happy. If it is used to mean homosexual, then it means homosexual.
Furthermore, you are putting the word “necessity” in the wrong place in terms of the original quote from Autolykos. Your word placement has changed the meaning of what he said.
And Rothbard had a few other things correct as well:
"An Anarchist FAQ explains how anarchism, in all its many forms, is fundamentally a socialist (anti-capitalist) theory and movement. This has caused it to be, well, hated with a passion in certain right-wing circles. It is somewhat ironic, then, to discover that the founder of “anarcho”-capitalism, Murray Rothbard, also concluded that “that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical”. This was because “all” anarchists had “socialistic elements in their doctrines” and “possessed socialisticeconomic doctrines in common.” It is hard to disagree…
In a sadly unpublished article from the 1950s entitled “Are Libertarians ‘Anarchists’?”, leading “anarcho”-capitalist Murray Rothbard came to the same conclusion that almost all anarchists have done, namely that “anarcho”-capitalists are not anarchists. The article itself is notable not only for its correct conclusion, namely “We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists” but also for its ill-informed diatribes against anarchism, particularly what Rothbard terms “left-wing” anarchism (i.e., social anarchism). As such, it is useful to highlight its mistakes and flaws."
More can be read at an ‘actual’ anarchist website, Anarchist Writers. In addition to having a very thorough outline of anarchist history and the actual anarchists involved in it, there is a equally good analysis of Mises’ thought and the many things you rarely heard mentioned by his proponents. I think it safe to say that neither Rothbard nor Mises were quite quite up to par on what anarchism was all about, though fortunately Rothbard did manage todip into it far enough to have at least realized that capitalists were NOT anarchists, though this is something anyone having read even an introductory reader on anarchism would be well aware.
Hey! Answer is down below.
That’s a shame, because language is relative.
Are you absolutely sure?
I’m sure he’s ‘relatively’ sure.
How do you define “authority” and “hierarchy”?
First off, I’ll note that you seem to have a problem addressing me by name. I’m puzzled as to why. Maybe I struck a nerve with you and this is your way of trying to “get back at me”. If so, well, good luck with that.
Anyways, when you use the phrase “words mean nothing” above, do you mean “meanings don’t inhere in words”? Or do you mean “it’s impossible to impute any meaning to any word”? The former is true but the latter isn’t.
Also, I’ll note that you’ve strawmanned my position. If I refer to a married person with the word “bachelor” without explaining my different definition for it, then those who expect “bachelor” to mean “an unmarried man” will understandably be confused. However, I’ve always talked about specifying non-standard definitions as clearly as possible in the interests of mitigating confusion. You’ve ignored that part - perhaps deliberately.
Finally, I’ll note that you use the phrase “the folks who think he’s using the term ‘bachelor’ incorrectly” rather than something like “the folks who use the term ‘bachelor’ correctly” - which implies that you do understand that correct/incorrect usage of a word is a matter of opinion/convention, rather than some inherent truth.
The fact that I agree with the above demonstrates that you attacked a strawman in place of my actual position.
As I wrote before, there’s nothing necessary about the particular agreements made, the particular meanings imputed, or the particular words to which those meanings are imputed. Yes, it’s necessary to impute meanings to words (if one’s goal is to communicate), but there’s nothing that requires a person (i.e. makes him bound) to associate a particular meaning with a particular word and vice-versa.
I hope this clarifies my position.
But you claimed that every word has a (i.e. one and only one) correct meaning. So what’s the correct meaning of “faggot”? Is it “bundle of sticks”? Is it “cigarette”? Is it “homosexual (pejorative)”? Is it something else entirely?