kropotkinbeard:As I said, if we change the definition of the word "anarchism" then we can call it anything.
We can already call it anything.
kropotkinbeard:So, why not call it "dog"? After all, dogs are "anti-state", too.
You mean change the definition of "dog" to something else, right? Indeed, why not, except others may not understand what you mean unless you explain your alternative definition? But as long as you use a single definition for "dog" consistently, there will be nothing wrong with your reasoning.
kropotkinbeard:If one is going to use the term "anarchist" how it was originally used, and for the reasons it was originally used, then, no, one cannot, or at least should not, change the definition to include something as brazenly contrary to its original meaning.
No one's under any obligation to use the term "anarchist" how it was originally used, or for the reasons it was originally used. Your expectations there are irrelevant.
kropotkinbeard:This is what the the term "meaning" means.
Necessarily?
kropotkinbeard:This would be little different than were I to decide to start using the term "bachelor" for "married men" as well.
In that case, "bachelor" is simply synonymous with "man". Again, the only concern here is mutual understanding.
kropotkinbeard:Well, yes, I 'can' do this, but, firstly, why would I.
Why not? Who knows? You seem to be appealing to tradition at this point, though.
kropotkinbeard:Secondly, given that both terms "bachelor" and "married man" already have definitions, as does anarchist, why change it?
Again, why not?
kropotkinbeard:Thirdly, even if I were to change it, why would I change it to entail the exact opposite of what the original term was based?
Why not? There's nothing preventing anyone from doing so.
kropotkinbeard:It's at this point where someone may wish to offer the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but this would itself be a fallacy as there IS a definition of anarchism, as well as certain tenets and principles which would qualify someone as an anarchist. Being a proponent of capitalism is most [definitely] not one of them, nor has it ever been.
Arguing that a given definition of "anarchism" is the "correct" one simply because it's been used longer constitutes an appeal to tradition, as I've already noted. To put it another way: there's actually no such thing as a "correct definition". All definitions are inherently arbitrary, no matter how commonly they're used.
kropotkinbeard:To use your logic then were I to decide to [start] referring to all married men as bachelors, and someone disagreed with my use of the term, then that's just their problem.
It is their problem, as long as you explicated your alternative usage of "bachelor". Surely they can substitute your usage of "bachelor" for their own when engaging in discourse with you? Or is that really too hard for them? If so, why?
kropotkinbeard:I hardly think this is my problem. I'm not a lingustic relativist.
That's a shame, because language is relative.
kropotkinbeard:Words have meanings, usually.
Oh, only usually? Sounds like linguistic relativism creeping in!
kropotkinbeard:Anarchism is, by defintion, anti-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian structures. Period.
Nice try. I remain free to define "anarchism" however I want. Period.
kropotkinbeard:This is an integral part of the defintion of the word. Capitalism doesn't fit. A more appropriate term should be concocted instead of hijacking a term with it's opposite.
Hey, at least you're more straightforward than e.g. Birthday Pony and Fool on the Hill. I applaud you for that. Since you've been so straightforward, allow me to be so straightforward in return: make me concoct a more appropriate term.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
So you believe a sardonic remark about the inconsistency of minarchists infers that Walter Block actually believes that 80-90% of "liberatarians" are minarchists?
Yes, and it's pretty much a fact. But even if it wasn't, libertarian does not just have one meaning. You could argue that minarchists are not really "voluntaryists" perhaps, but libertarian doesn't just mean anarcho-capitalist.
If you are arguing about who used the word first, you should know that according to Wikipedia 'the term "anarchist" first entered the English language in 1642, during the English Civil War, as a term of abuse, used by Royalists against their Roundhead opponents.' Thus it is you who has co-opted the word from Royalist usage!!!
Anarchy simply means without rule. Its figurative meaning in English is "chaos". Looking at the strict etymological meaning of the word, the mantle of anarchism can be claimed by any who oppose forceful rule, within which voluntarist libertarianism fits by definition. There is nothing in the word 'anarchy' that implies equality, since inequality exists naturally and nature is necessarily anarchic by definition.
Are you absolutely sure?
The term "gay" used to mean happy. Over time it began to be used to mean homosexual. However, when it became to be used to indicate homosexuality it did not assume the opposite of the term gay i.e.hate."
"I never said that it did. I am merely pointing out that words do not have a fixed meaning. Their meanings are based on what people think they mean. I am also pointing out that it doesn't make sense to insert your own definition into what someone else is saying. You would no longer know what that person is attempting to communicate."
Didn't say you said it did. And, actually, yes, most words do have relatively fixed meanings. 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. 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.
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, then, well, that's just their problem.
"I never said that it was their problem if they don't understand you. As far as I'm concerned, it's your problem. You are the one attempting to communicate an idea, and other people are not understanding what you want to communicate. That's not their problem. It's yours."
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.
"You can use words to mean whatever you want them to mean. No one is stopping you. But if you use nonstandard definitions, then the onus is on you to clarify what your definition is."
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, 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, 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.
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.
"I accept your apology. It is a shame that you are under the impression that words have objective meanings. Words do not have truth values. It can be true that someone uses a word in a particular way. It can be false that someone uses a word in a particular way. But the sound itself has no inherent meaning."
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?
That the term "anarchist" has been hijacked 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. 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. 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.
"I prefer it when words keep their meaning, more or less. It makes things less confusing. I think it is silly to redefine most words to mean whatever one wants them to mean. But sometimes there is an advantage to redefining certain words. Anarchist may have been used by communists originally, but the etymology of anarchy is "without ruler". Libertarian anarchists trying to change the meaning of anarchy to what the parts of the word means is a good thing, in my opinion."
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, 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. This is a good thing? Pro-capitalist propertarians referring to themselves as anarchists, the opposite of what they are, 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 in the "Austrian school" and many of its interesting notions, having little to do with the real world, then you can just call anything anything.
"No, they are exactly what they think they are. Words represent concepts. They know what they are conceptually. They use a word to represent that concept, and you would prefer if they used a different word. But they still know what they are. And so long as other people know what they mean by it, then other people know what they are."
Uhhh...They may know what they are "conceptually", but they are not anarchists realistically. They should at a minimum know this much. They use the term anarchist, and they are using it incorrectly. If a five year old calls himself a man, he is simply not using the term "man" correctly, regardless of what he believes it to be "conceptually".
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, and often fight to maintain their newly found status among like-minded "anarchists", which aren't anarchists at all. Thirdly, they end up making claims which they believe are "anarchist", but which aren't at all, and are often the opposite. There are more reasons, but that's enough for now.
"No, they are referring to their positions completely accurately. They are in fact anarchists. That you prefer a different meaning doesn't change what they are. That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
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, nor are their positions anarchist. That's all. They are not Martians. They are not eggs (though close). They are not many things. Anarchism simply happens to be one of them, and it would behoove them to know this. After all, every 'actual' 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".
Actually, no, I have "co-opted" nothing. Perhaps I should have said "libertarian" rather than anarchist, though they can be used interchageably assuming one is using the term "libertarian" correctly. It is in this sense I was using "anarchism" (as noted below). But then, again, my mistake was assuming that all readers would know the basics. The quotes below are taken from an 'actual' anarchist/libertarian site, and nothing presented here are even minimally controversial. These are THE basics. You know, like "Anarcho/Libertarianism 101?
"As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.
Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term “libertarian” for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there. Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing “libertarians” complaining that we genuine libertarians have “stolen” their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it!"
"The facts are somewhat different. As Murray Bookchin noted, “libertarian” was “a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists, not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians.” [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 57] While we discuss this issue in An Anarchist FAQ in a few places (most obviously, section A.1.3) it is useful on the 150thanniversary to discuss the history of anarchist use of the word “libertarian” to describe our ideas."
"The first anarchist journal to use the term “libertarian” was La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social. Somewhat ironically, given recent developments in America, it was published in New York between 1858 and 1861 by French communist-anarchist Joseph Déjacque. The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when “libertarian communism” was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16-22 November, 1880). January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on “Libertarian or Anarchist Communism.” Finally, 1895 saw leading anarchists Sébastien Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 75-6, p. 145 and p. 162]
I recommend reading something by folks who actually understand the subject.
*Quotes taken from Anarchist Writers webpage '150 years of Libertarian'
Currently, I am of the opinion that minarchists are as much libertarian, as the social contract is a contract, or Intellectual property is property. They are kind of poser-libertarians.
And How do you like the armchair anarchists, Marko? I mean now those guys that talk abou tanarchy all the time and rant against the state. Meanwhile they prefer living in states with high tax rates and lot's of tax funded institution over living in anarchistic or at least more anarchistic societies.
kropotkinbeard: As I said, if we change the definition of the word "anarchism" then we can call it anything.
"We can already call it anything."
Yes, we call it "anarchism" or "libertarianism", and these have meanings. They are both anti-authoritarian structures of all types, unless it can be justified to be otherwise, and both anti-capitalist.
kropotkinbeard: So, why not call it "dog"? After all, dogs are "anti-state", too.
"You mean change the definition of "dog" to something else, right? Indeed, why not, except others may not understand what you mean unless you explain your alternative definition? But as long as you use a single definition for "dog" consistently, there will be nothing wrong with your reasoning.
No, I do not mean change "the definition" of dog. A dog is a dog. I mean, we shouldn't change the label "dog" to something else, say, calling that thing which some folks think of as a car, a dog, which is what one is doing if referring to themselves as "anarchist" or "libertarian" when they hold capitalist propertarians views. That's all.
kropotkinbeard: If one is going to use the term "anarchist" how it was originally used, and for the reasons it was originally used, then, no, one cannot, or at least should not, change the definition to include something as brazenly contrary to its original meaning.
"No one's under any obligation to use the term "anarchist" how it was originally used, or for the reasons it was originally used. Your expectations there are irrelevant."
And then no one is under any obligation to use any other term how it was originally used, or for reasons they were originally used. In other words, all words are relative and have no meaning. This, of course, would include everything you've just asserted. Of course as this is obviously absurd, my expectations have just been confirmed by your reply, and hardly seem irrelevant.
kropotkinbeard: This is what the the term "meaning" means.
"Necessarily?"
Of course not! Again, you can call yourself an eggplant if you wish. It will just have nothing to do with the usage which has been agreed upon by those speaking the English language. Of course they could all be wrong I guess. Then again, no, they couldn't.
kropotkinbeard: This would be little different than were I to decide to start using the term "bachelor" for "married men" as well.
"In that case, "bachelor" is simply synonymous with "man". Again, the only concern here is mutual understanding."
No, in that case bachelor would be synonymous with "married man", which is not what the term bachelor means, by definition. Again, we can put whatever label we want on anything. It simply means that the label is incorrect. If someone calls me Fred, they're wrong. Period. If not, then you're pushing linguistic relativism. Also, again, if we decide upon a label, say, "dog" for that mammal which greets us when we come home, and this label has been used for hundreds of years, and as acquired a meaning, the only thing of interest would be the reason why someone decided to change it.
kropotkinbeard: Well, yes, I 'can' do this, but, firstly, why would I.
"Why not? Who knows? You seem to be appealing to tradition at this point, though."
Yes, you're correct. I am. I'm well aware of how to use labels. I can call that small furry thing "dog" or "goa" or "inu" and all of these labels refer to the same object. The object of the term is an actual thing which has been agreed upon by one's given culture. There really is no need to get into Frege, Chomsky, etc...Let's just keep it simple. When I refer to "a dog", there is usually little difficulty in understanding what I'm referring to by most folks, save those who may be mentally impaired, speak another language, etc...just as there is little difficulty in understanding that the term libertarian/anarchist are and always have been anti-capitalist. And if someone is unaware of this, then it's similar to not knowing what a "dog" is when someone uses the term in it's usual way. Again, if you're surrounded by folks who are all calling those giant things with trunks and a tusks "dogs", then for you there is no problem. They should just make sure they don't talk about those big "dogs" to ordinary people using a shared language. Or at least be prepared to say why they've decided to change the label. Perhaps they can't spell elephant because there are too many letters. Whatever reason should be specified. If they're not even aware that they're using the term incorrectly, well, that's actually even worse.
kropotkinbeard: Secondly, given that both terms "bachelor" and "married man" already have definitions, as does anarchist, why change it?
"Again, why not?"
Well, for a trivial reason, because the labels have already been decided on. Again, we can call anything by any label we want. This allows for communication to take place. One can only assume that if one wishes to consciously change the definitions that they're doing so for some reason other than communicating. But given that this is what language is for, that wouldn't be too bright. That's why.
kropotkinbeard: Thirdly, even if I were to change it, why would I change it to entail the exact opposite of what the original term was based?
"Why not? There's nothing preventing anyone from doing so."
Actually, yes, there are reasons for not doing so. For one, and hold on, this is really "deep", so that others can understand those sounds which are coming out of that hole in the front of his head. But, yeah, if I thought I were really "clever", "artistic" and "post-modern" I guess I could walk around babbling sounds, calling everything I see by different labels, labels no one understands, and may even think what I'm doing is genius. Sure, anyone could do this. The question would be why would they? They think it's cool? Hardly.
kropotkinbeard: It's at this point where someone may wish to offer the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but this would itself be a fallacy as there IS a definition of anarchism, as well as certain tenets and principles which would qualify someone as an anarchist. Being a proponent of capitalism is most [definitely] not one of them, nor has it ever been.
"Arguing that a given definition of "anarchism" is the "correct" one simply because it's been used longer constitutes an appeal to tradition, as I've already noted."
Yes, and as an appeal to tradition, it's the accepted label, and the one which should be understood. I mean, again, if folks who call themselves "anarchists" or "libertarians" wish to do so, fine. They should just be aware that they're using a label which has a history, and a history which is NOT what they think it is. Also, if I introduce myself to someone as John, and they call me Fred, and I correct them, I'd find it an extremely weak argument for them to say "Oh, you're just 'appealing to tradition'. You are Fred."
"To put it another way: there's actually no such thing as a "correct definition". All definitions are inherently arbitrary, no matter how commonly they're used."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is a correct definition of words or I wouldn't even be able to understand your assertion that there are no such things as correct definitions. There must be correct definitions, that is, agreed upon definitions, or we would not be able to communicate. If we could, then please explain how?
kropotkinbeard: To use your logic then were I to decide to [start] referring to all married men as bachelors, and someone disagreed with my use of the term, then that's just their problem.
"It is their problem, as long as you explicated your alternative usage of "bachelor". Surely they can substitute your usage of "bachelor" for their own when engaging in discourse with you? Or is that really too hard for them? If so, why?"
No, actually, it is my problem as I am the one attempting to change the agreed upon usage, which IS all that matters. Yes, I could explain to them that I think I'm a "post-modern artist" and that I would try to explain it to them, but that they just wouldn't be able to understand due to the "depth" of my philosophical insights and sophistication, but then that would embarrassingly ignorant. It's not "hard" for them at all. It's just stupid. But if that's not a problem, then by all means, the person should go for it. I'd be more than happy to take a video and use it for advanced graduate studies in abnormal psychology. But then again we all know that psychology is subjective as well, right?
kropotkinbeard: I hardly think this is my problem. I'm not a lingustic relativist.
Oh, really? Can you understand the words you are reading right now? If so, then you have just tossed your theory into the toilet.
kropotkinbeard: Words have meanings, usually.
Actually, again, no, nothing creeping in. Some things do not have exact meanings, say, "love". Other things do, say, "dog", or "anti-capitalist libertarian anarchist".
kropotkinbeard: Anarchism is, by defintion, anti-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian structures. Period.
"Nice try. I remain free to define "anarchism" however I want. Period."
I haven't "tried" anything. I have simply stated a fact. But then again according to your "relativist" stance (which is actually not really even relativist, but that's another story), the notion of a "fact" would also be relative, right?
kropotkinbeard: This is an integral part of the defintion of the word. Capitalism doesn't fit. A more appropriate term should be concocted instead of hijacking a term with it's opposite.
"Hey, at least you're more straightforward than e.g. Birthday Pony and Fool on the Hill. I applaud you for that. Since you've been so straightforward, allow me to be so straightforward in return: make me concoct a more appropriate term."
Why on earth would I do that? I enjoy watching people pointing at elephants and calling them trees, and then when confronted with the 'fact' that the thing was an elephant they say that I'm "appealing to tradition". Sometimes traditions are good.
"The keyboard is mightier than the gun."
I like this quote, though I'm a drummer. That being said, I do have a keyboard, too.
Torsten: And How do you like the armchair anarchists, Marko? I mean now those guys that talk abou tanarchy all the time and rant against the state. Meanwhile they prefer living in states with high tax rates and lot's of tax funded institution over living in anarchistic or at least more anarchistic societies.
Salt of the earth.
kropotkinbeard:Actually, no, I have "co-opted" nothing. Perhaps I should have said "libertarian" rather than anarchist, though they can be used interchageably assuming one is using the term "libertarian" correctly. It is in this sense I was using "anarchism" (as noted below). But then, again, my mistake was assuming that all readers would know the basics. The quotes below are taken from an 'actual' anarchist/libertarian site, and nothing presented here are even minimally controversial. These are THE basics. You know, like "Anarcho/Libertarianism 101? "As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations. Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term “libertarian” for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there. Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing “libertarians” complaining that we genuine libertarians have “stolen” their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it!"
kropotkinbeard:"The facts are somewhat different. As Murray Bookchin noted, “libertarian” was “a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists, not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians.” [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 57] While we discuss this issue in An Anarchist FAQ in a few places (most obviously, section A.1.3) it is useful on the 150thanniversary to discuss the history of anarchist use of the word “libertarian” to describe our ideas." "The first anarchist journal to use the term “libertarian” was La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social. Somewhat ironically, given recent developments in America, it was published in New York between 1858 and 1861 by French communist-anarchist Joseph Déjacque. The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when “libertarian communism” was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16-22 November, 1880). January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on “Libertarian or Anarchist Communism.” Finally, 1895 saw leading anarchists Sébastien Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 75-6, p. 145 and p. 162] I recommend reading something by folks who actually understand the subject. *Quotes taken from Anarchist Writers webpage '150 years of Libertarian'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History
Torsten:Are you absolutely sure [that language is relative]?
If I understand you correctly, then yes, I'd say so.
Just need clarification. And if this is the case, what are you recommending if not purging the fakes?
I don't recommend anything, I just affirm what is. That is in fact my main point. If word consumers choose something to meet their demands and it serves a categorical utility function so be it(and the mere fact that someone willed it so, and it served as some social language function, it is so).
We may be able to do geneologies as to why this was done (perhaps to point out a so called "absurdity"). Or we may be able to verify or falsify claims based off the criterea given, but frankly these things seem like a supreme waste of time to me, unless you come from a very leisurly / rich background or your incentives and time is being perverted by academic subsidy.
Could not princes point to their geneologies in America and show that they are Royalty? This may be so - but look at how effective an answer just "laughing in the face" of a person bringing up a stupid concern that has no bearing on my being is.
All I am trying to do is steer people away from word Platonism and just look at the propositions in play. "What is real" is simply irrelevant outside of the wills subjective ability to value it as useful for the time being.
If someone wants to call themselve a "real" libertarian in any sense, than it must be so. What is real is what I call my own, and what is mine. The real question is, "so what, and how is that relevant to what is mine?"
The fact remains whole slews of people call themselves libertarians, so be it, it is functionally, pragmatically, and Truthfully (with a capital "T") hence they are.
Wisdom from the great Ludwig Lachmann (from the coordination problem blog):
Ludwig Lachmann during his annual visit to GMU a student asked him whether or not Hutt should be considered an Austrian. Lachmann replied "If Hutt believes himself to be an Austrian economist, then he must be an Austrian economist."
Leave these types of hissy fit useless debates are for subsidied academic intellectuals, they seriously will go away if you ignore them (i.e. take away their subsidy).
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
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.
vive la insurrection:The fact remains whole slews of people call themselves libertarians, so be it, it is functionally, pragmatically, and Truthfully (with a capital "T") hence they are.
Not at all. The fact is simply that whole slews of people call themselves "libertarians". Whether they meet a given definition of "libertarian" depends on that definition.
When it comes to words, Platonism is all there is.
If they call themselves a libertarian,they meet their definition for liberterian, if you care that much to engage them it's on you to see what that is. Seriously though, I'm not getting into this.
Why on earth anyone cares about such things is well beyond me.
Sure, they meet their own definitions for "libertarian", but those definitions may be different from my own. That said, I do think it's useful to find out what their definitions are.
We're saying the same thing:
Category X libertarian is not Category Y Liberterian. Category Y libertarian can only say that Cat X libertarian is NOT a Category Y libertarian, however there is nothing he can do with any meaning about saying he "isn't a libertarian", there is no ULTIMATE Libertarianism in the sky that will violate the word in play if it is used in some random fashion.
Once again though, this is an empty structure, and I would be baffled as to why it would be much concern.
You're right, we are saying the same thing, just in different ways. :P I only think it's of so much concern because so many people don't seem to understand it. But that's just me.
kropotkinbeard:Yes, we call it "anarchism" or "libertarianism", and these have meanings. They are both anti-authoritarian structures of all types, unless it can be justified to be otherwise, and both anti-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.
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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".
"I, for one, couldn't care less."
Great! I could care less that you care less. Your turn.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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."
?
"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.
Torsten: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.
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.
Autolykos: 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.
I covered some of this in the above portion, but the important thing to keep in mind is that the invading army is by definition violating the NAP. So, there probably aren't that many rules necessary for defending against an invading army. More or less: 1) Repel the invaders 2) Don't aggress against civilians EDIT: I didn't write anything about the rules of war for an invading force, so here it is: An invading army cannot invade without violating the NAP. Any rules of war based on the NAP are obviously going to do nothing for them. But what about a small strike force? Well, theoretically, if the force is small enough, it could get around a city or nation without using aggression in order to accomplish its mission. So, the rules: 1) Don't aggress against anyone, civilians or otherwise. I guess that's it. If the libertarian nation is sending a force into a state, well, then there really isn't any need to follow the NAP, as the state doesn't follow the NAP anyway. Just being there violates the laws of the state. And who is going to bring charges against them in their home nation? If the force goes to another libertarian nation, then so long as they don't break the NAP, it is unlikely to be a problem.
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.
@gotlucky,
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.
kropotkinbeard: One can't be anti-authoritarian and capitalist as the capitalist relationship is a hierarchical relationship. Period.
One can't be anti-authoritarian and capitalist as the capitalist relationship is a hierarchical relationship. Period.
hierarchy != rulers
Anarchy means "without rulers", not "without a hierarchy".
kropotkinbeard: 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.
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.
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.
kropotkinbeard: 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.
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.
I'm sure he's 'relatively' sure.
kropotkinbeard:One can't be anti-authoritarian and capitalist as the capitalist relationship is a hierarchical relationship. Period.
How do you define "authority" and "hierarchy"?
kropotkinbeard: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 [sic] the term libertarian/anarchist and marry it to capitalism. One way is simply to pretend [sic] that the relationship is not hierarchical, when it is nothing but [sic], unless, perhaps, one is working strictly for themselves, which is almost never the case. But this would simply be delusional [sic]. 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 [sic] that this is "libertarian" or "anarchist", which it is not [sic]. We've already had a good demonstration here by a (linguistic relativist) fellow beliving that words mean nothing [sic], 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. [Emphasis added.]
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.
kropotkinbeard: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 [communicate].
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.
kropotkinbeard: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.
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?