Right Libertarianism

JCFolsom:

The general public views anyone who wants extremely low/no taxes and all, or even most, victimless crimes legalized, as a libertarian. You may not like it, but that be how it is. I mean, you do whatever makes you feel better, but to anyone not on this forum you're just going to sound like a snob ("I'm the REEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAL libertarian here!"). Minarchists are part of the libertarian movement whether you want us or not.

Then you are being purged. Bye.

Words are, in fact, symbols which, in fact, have no meaning, in fact, beyond what the culture that produces them defines them as. There may be a word, in fact, that is restricted to meaning "one who holds strictly to the non-aggression principle", but that word is not, in fact, "libertarian". Words have no absolute meaning, but only that granted by consensus. The consensus opposes you, so, in fact, you're wrong.

Brainpolice:

Byzantine:

JAlanKatz:

The Republicans can't seem to tolerate anyone who is for open borders.

 

George Bush is for open borders, as is John McCain.  So is the Wall Street Journal and the AEI.

I think if you pushed either Sabrin or Paul to the mat on this, they'd tell you that maintaining the nation's territorial and political integrity is about the only legitimate function of a federal government.  I'd speculate further that if you really nailed them down, they'd say if the federal government is not going to do even that, then there really isn't any justification for the Union.

As a matter of policy, I see nothing wrong with requiring that the language of government be English.  This encourages assimilation into a commercial republic under the rule of law, rather than perpetuating the role of government as arbiter of redistributive justice between various ethnic voting blocs.

Of course, we're a long way over the cliff at this point.

 

No politician is for genuine "open borders". All politicians support the existance of the political borders to begin with. This includes so-called "open borders" politicians who actually support "limited border enforcement" at best. George Bush and John McCaine do not support abolition of political borders. Only anarchists truly support open borders, or to use a more accurate term "no political borders". Political borders has nothing to do with the cause of individual liberty.

There's isn't any justification for "the union", nor "the states" or any of the city or county governments.

But... But... But who will build the roads?

JCFolsom:

Words are, in fact, symbols which, in fact, have no meaning, in fact, beyond what the culture that produces them defines them as. There may be a word, in fact, that is restricted to meaning "one who holds strictly to the non-aggression principle", but that word is not, in fact, "libertarian". Words have no absolute meaning, but only that granted by consensus. The consensus opposes you, so, in fact, you're wrong.

No, words do have meaning, and the meaning must go back to the origin of the word. You can improperly use the word all you like, you'll just look foolish. However, that does not change the fact that the word is being improperly used.

Niccolò:

Like most words in your precious, English language, two words can (and do) mean the same thing.

For example, mad and angry, soldier and warrior, contentious and hostile, etc. They're called synonyms.

Indeed, a precious language, far more varied and nuanced than your simplistic old-world blather. For instance, though I can see how this would be lost on such as you, there are nuances and slight, but meaningful differences between the words you cite as synonyms. Mad and angry denote different severities of the feeling, angry being somewhat greater than mad. A soldier is a state fighting bot, a warrior can mean one far more independent who nonetheless lives by the sword. A debate can be contentious without being hostile. Maybe your precious Italian does not possess such subtleties, though?

Niccolò:

If you think that libertarians can advocate the state, then you ruin the definition of libertarian. Sure, go ahead, define it in these broad spectrums of "protecting property rights." Mussolini will say that this is what he's doing by ordering the Tuscan dialect to be the only Italian spoken. Stalin will profess, his gulags were only for the violators of the people's property. Yes, Pinochet will agree, he was only considering the protection of military property rights. Taxes are surely necessary to protect those, at least if you decide that arbitrary distinctions and wishful thinking are useful.

Y'know, there are a few steps between the examples you give and Ron Paul's proposed policies, or I daresay, even the policies of the US currently. We are more LIBERTARIAN than Mussolini, but less LIBERTARIAN than Ron Paul would have us be.

Niccolò:

Words are not determined by consensus, by the way, words are conceived by consensus, but defined by consistency.

Right, so libertarian was conceived as meaning one who believes that people ought to be free to do pretty much as they like, and surprise surprise, it has largely kept that meaning, despite your attempts to warp it to your desires.

Niccolò:

And neglectful - not to mention harmful - for those few that do not speak English, but own property that will be raped thanks to your ethnocentric laws.

My grandfather, for example, who speaks very little English, but receives tax forms in Italian or Spanish (a language he spoke previously to moving to America).

Boo-hoo! Well, maybe your grandfather should have learned English before he came to a primarily English-speaking country. I don't see why anyone's tax dollars ought be spent (.) providing conveniences for people too lazy to actually assimilate to a functional degree with the majority culture.

I see, so you are saying language is inflexible and does not change over time? Wierd. I coulda sworn that even such "noble" languages as italian have changed some over the years.

JCFolsom:

I see, so you are saying language is inflexible and does not change over time? Wierd. I coulda sworn that even such "noble" languages as italian have changed some over the years.

Yes, language does change. Words are reformed in their spellings, pronunciations, and of course idioms and cultural sayings change all the time, however, the words themselves are solid - though they may be used in different contexts, such as adjectives, nouns, verbs, etc.

JCFolsom:

Indeed, a precious language, far more varied and nuanced than your simplistic old-world blather. For instance, though I can see how this would be lost on such as you, there are nuances and slight, but meaningful differences between the words you cite as synonyms. Mad and angry denote different severities of the feeling, angry being somewhat greater than mad. A soldier is a state fighting bot, a warrior can mean one far more independent who nonetheless lives by the sword. A debate can be contentious without being hostile. Maybe your precious Italian does not possess such subtleties, though?

Apparently they stopped teaching about synonyms in your public schools.

JCFolsom:

Y'know, there are a few steps between the examples you give and Ron Paul's proposed policies, or I daresay, even the policies of the US currently. We are more LIBERTARIAN than Mussolini, but less LIBERTARIAN than Ron Paul would have us be.

Now you're talking about adjectives. I'm talking about nouns. If Ron Paul is a libertarian, then so is Mussolini. The degree of "libertarian" in the context of an adjective shouldn't matter.

And no, your America is at about the same place Italia was during Mussolini's reign, perhaps even further away considering the murder rate by your government.

JCFolsom:

Right, so libertarian was conceived as meaning one who believes that people ought to be free to do pretty much as they like, and surprise surprise, it has largely kept that meaning, despite your attempts to warp it to your desires.

I believe PJ Proudhon was the first to use the word libertarian and in the context of his Anarchism, though I may be wrong, the word libertarianism has always been connected with Proudhon's Anarchism and not, as some seem to suggest, with British liberalism.

JCFolsom:

Boo-hoo! Well, maybe your grandfather should have learned English

Wow... How libertarian.

F-u-c-k you.

Niccolò:

Yes, language does change. Words are reformed in their spellings, pronunciations, and of course idioms and cultural sayings change all the time, however, the words themselves are solid - though they may be used in different contexts, such as adjectives, nouns, verbs, etc.

You are incorrect, sir. The meanings of words can change, especially when two meanings, once related, have that relationship severed. For instance, saying someone is on a bilous rant originally referred to the idea that anger was tied into the bilous humor, an idea which has been discarded. A person, not familiar with that history, could still use the word "bile" in either rather different context, and quite correctly.

Similarly, "libertarian" was originally coined in Europe to describe the rather incoherent philosophy of anarchist socialism, but by the time it gained wide use on these shores it was already more of a term for minarchism, and even more so has it adopted that meaning over time.

Niccolò:

Apparently they stopped teaching about synonyms in your public schools.

Apparently you learned all you know about English from Wikipedia.

Niccolò:

If Ron Paul is a libertarian, then so is Mussolini. The degree of "libertarian" in the context of an adjective shouldn't matter.

Ron Paul believes that people should, by and large, be free to live their lives as they choose in their own best interests. Mussolini viewed humans as members of the state, and that they should be forced to do as he deemed was most advantageous to the state. One can be properly labeled "libertarian" if one is relatively more libertarian than the bulk of the competing political philosophies of the day. Oh no, relative meaning, RUN!!!!

Niccolò:

JCFolsom:

Boo-hoo! Well, maybe your grandfather should have learned English

Wow... How libertarian.

F-u-c-k you.

Moderator! He said a naughty word. How MASTERFUL of him! He used HYPHENS to overcome the filter. BRILLIANT!!! {/sarcasm}

As for the opinion, there is nothing unlibertarian about it whatsoever. I'm not saying we should beat him for not speaking Ingerich, just that we shouldn't cater to his linguistic recalcitrance.

Ok guys calm down!  Let's not start using those wonderful 4 letter words.  Let's let Niccolo believe he's is right (when nearly all of the other libertarian writers, including Rothbard, recognize that minarchism is a form of libertarianism).  It's not worth fighting about.  It's just a stupid word.

Niccolò:

JCFolsom:

The general public views anyone who wants extremely low/no taxes and all, or even most, victimless crimes legalized, as a libertarian. You may not like it, but that be how it is. I mean, you do whatever makes you feel better, but to anyone not on this forum you're just going to sound like a snob ("I'm the REEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAL libertarian here!"). Minarchists are part of the libertarian movement whether you want us or not.

 

Then you are being purged. Bye.

 

 

 Then you are purged for supporting the CRA. Bye.

Until we have a Minarchist government, it doesn't matter if you are a Minarchist or Anarchist. We just need to get things moving in our direction.

ChaseCola:

Niccolò:

JCFolsom:

The general public views anyone who wants extremely low/no taxes and all, or even most, victimless crimes legalized, as a libertarian. You may not like it, but that be how it is. I mean, you do whatever makes you feel better, but to anyone not on this forum you're just going to sound like a snob ("I'm the REEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAL libertarian here!"). Minarchists are part of the libertarian movement whether you want us or not.

 

Then you are being purged. Bye.

 

 

 Then you are purged for supporting the CRA. Bye.

 

 

Until we have a Minarchist government, it doesn't matter if you are a Minarchist or Anarchist. We just need to get things moving in our direction.

The problem is that a minarchist government has always been a floating abstraction. Or, at best, it's only comparative.

(my 2 cents, feel free to skip  D:   )

I thought one of the problems (that anarchists have with minarchists) in the first place was the Reformists eventually losing out and furthering the word soup & blurred meanings of libertarianism, while wasting resources which could've been better spent at being a non-politically active educational gateway for the mainstream to more radical apolitical & political thought outside of the system, thus fostering acknowledgment for a broken system's problem's (Statism), that so many apparently do not really see in the present time, and finally realizing radical change is needed?

Honestly, if minarchists were truly minimal about the roles of governance, how does it not apply to minarchists as well?

Wasting time with the "Libertarian" Party might lead to: trying to simply get more people elected, possibly increasing political activity, the amount of people running for office,  the size of government, as any reduces are temporary & can easily be countered by other people with other agenda's being voted in, unless of course you have more "libertarians" continually running for office, furthering the state's existence & the capacity for Statists to continually fight back in their own tidy system. 

Not to worry: libertarians will adjust their goals to become "more electable", and win accolades with a public who could be, instead, challeneged on the widespread use of the "lesser of evils" doctrine, the use of the typical left & right political spectrums, original meanings of words that have been hijacked; basically how to read between the lines of the Statist's script for The Grand Political Theatre. 

That all seems like a lot of activity in the state to be called "minimal", especially since the statists will not give up as long as they have the home field advantage.

How is simply educating the public without all the above b.s., which would be a waste of resources, time, effort, morale, & patience of those who are ignorant but willing to listen, not a better idea?

Then again, I suppose if minarchists were truly minimal, I suppose they would be called gatearchists, gatewayarchists, semiarchists, or eduarchists (none of those are very catchy except for the last one...).

Minarchism, as it's commonly used, just seems like apologizing for a system that, despite having numerous problems, such as hidden tragedies (to the mainstream public), systemic corruption, breeding neo-feudalism, corporatism, cronyism at the highest levels of a government that supposedly "represents" its citizens, military industrial complex, welfare state, a "mixed" economy on warfare lifeline, shouldn't be messed with, since it seems to somehow "work" for those who don't get screwed by it (miraculously unscathed, or relatively unscathed compared to less fortunate souls), or for those who are doing the screwing.

"Results of the market"; "competition", "not as bad as it looks", some might say?  Where can you opt out then?  You can't, really, unless that means being a criminal for the victimless crime of not letting the state "guide" your life. 

I see no consistency in calling minarchism "minimal".  The only consistent thing I see is the unspoken gospel of the lesser of evils : \.

Sorry for furthering off-topic D:

JCFolsom:

I think all that having English as an official language would do is that they stop giving out government forms (of which there should be far, far fewer) in any language other than English.

Why would it do that?  (We have an "official language" (actually, three), but government forms are usually available in about a dozen languages)

(FWIW, most states in the US already have English as the official language; LA has English and French)

AFAICT, the designation of "official language" is fairly meaningless.  (When the text of a law is promulgated in several languages, the text of the "official language" takes precedence if there's any argument over the meaning.  That's about it, I think)