But can you agree that words have meanings, and if a word’s meaning is not clear, then it can be applied to two things which are not in fact the same, thus making the word worthless for the purpose of identification?
And if that is the case, then isn’t calling someone who is for government regulation a free marketer, allowing for a fascist to be a free marketer? Because I am unable to determine the difference between one regulator and another, when we’re talking about regulation qua regulation.
Or is this a nuance we’re supposed to detect and sniff out in real time, to determine subjective levels of “free marketerness” on a case by case basis?
It seems to me that you may be arguing that language should mean whatever sounds pleasing to your ear when applied to characters who you do or do not like, instead of language being an actual technology for communication and classification.
To challenge my beliefs against those held by others. The disparity between ideologies is too great to do that sort of thing with the public at large.
No, I do not support the existence of a construct by men who desire to impinge upon my liberty.
Well, that isn’t how I thought you defined it earlier:
This to me implies that you equate aggression with the state.
I am not anti-state, at least not in the absolute sense. I am against being restricted in my options. If the state granted me carte blanche to act as I saw fit tomorrow, it would no longer concern me if the state existed or not.
The fact that you can’t detect nuance in the positions of individuals here, and have to resort to childish carictures instead of straightforward debate says a lot more about your character than those people you hold in such low esteem.
The word “nuance” in his post to Student may have been a poorly chosen term. But the point was very clear. Student should recognize the many different positions and opinions here, and that these differences don’t make people stupid, or evil. If anyone should agree to that most, it would be you.
Whats sad is your attempted cheap shot at LS. Do these types of antagonistic posts help you accomplish your goals in debating the differences of your beliefs? That is the proposed reason for why you are here correct?
Is this a nuance we’re supposed to detect and sniff out in real time, to determine subjective levels of “positions” on a case by case basis?
It seems like you are unable to detect shades of grey in the mini’s positions, but expect them to understand and correctly interpret the shades of grey that may be present in your positions. I would consider this logically inconsistent, at least vis a vis argumentation theory.
ls, it was not a caricature of all individuals on this forum. i am well aware that most people that populate this forum are well informed people with nuanced positions of their own. its why i chill here.
You seem to have completely misunderstood the argument.
strangeloop wants to define libertarian as encompassing positions not Rothbardian. If he accepts that Rothbardianism is libertarian, then it seems that positions in conflict with Rothbardianism cannot be libertarian. If he denies Rothbardianism as libertarian, then that’s an entire issue altogether.
He claims to nuance as the way to make an apple an orange. If only we can see it under the correct light, A can be A and not A at the same time.
I’m simply saying that the claim that we’re fanatics of the type mocked by student completely misses the point. I don’t know one other anarchist on here who shares my views, except on the single, fundamental issue of libertarianism. Aggression. And even that position, we all arrive at subjectively and individually. So to colour us all the same, with those conclusions and attitudes posted by student may make for some great bathroom humor among the seven year olds, but its value is nil because it completely avoids the issue of aggression being legitimate or not as the defining characteristic of a libertarian.
Because public policy is not the market. It is by definition, anti-market. Why you insist on calling people who take anti-market positions sometimes, “pro-market” is beyond me.
If it is pro-market to use public policy sometimes, then what is it to use public policy often?
@Jackson LaRose, you can’t escape majoritarianism. You can wish you can do whatever you want, but if people are going to pay for private defense and if private courts will issue their opinion on things and attempt to transfer property “rights”, then the money will flow in one direction and that will become the dominant legal system. I wish Taco Bell would keep making Bacon Club Chalupas, but the demand is not high enough for them to be on the menu consistently
If a State left you alone, then it’s not really acting as a State, the way most people define it as or consider it to be. When we use State, we’re referring to basically every single entity that exists as a coercive monopoly on almost 100% of the soil of the Earth.
If a community builds a public road, or village green, or public welfare system or something, but doesn’t use an involuntary tax system, that is anti market?
To Strangeloop: Agreed. Liberty student went too far with that quote. I would just say that, IMO, many people who hold mainly (as opposed to completely) pro-market views tend to contradict themselves somewhere down the line. I wouldn’t say, however, that because they happen to be statist when it comes to law and defense that that immediately either a) invalidates their pro-market views or b) makes them, in general, statist.
So to recap, if they hold a view mainly, but not consistently, they will contradict themselves. HOWEVER, if they happen to contradict themselves, that doesn’t disqualify them. In other words, as long as we suspend logic, everyone can be a libertarian and a statist at the same time.
Would you say that someone who only aggresses a little is a non-aggressor? Because that is what you are doing.
Also, what if they are a statist when it comes to food regulation and education but not law and defense? Is it interchangeable? Can I swap in and out my two favorite parts of government and still be a libertarian? Is the definition of a statist someone who only accepts the total state?
See my post above re:Rothbardianism. If you accept Rothbardianism as libertarianism, then you have to accept non-aggression as libertarianism. If you reject Rothbardianism as libertarianism, well then let’s have that debate.