I read this up this morning, and more or less agreed with the application of a different term towards the "Libertarian" Party, minarchists & partyarchs (although I think it's much longer overdue, in hindsight):[the following is from: http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/980]
...a campaign to convince the LP to change their name to something else; something other than “Libertarian” as a “truth in advertising” thing.
My proposed umbrella term for neo-libertarian conservatoids, minarchists and partyarchs is also the term favored by the Cato Institute, so there is some appropriate precedent there. It’s “market liberal”. I believe this serves our purposes by complementing the term “market anarchist”, potentially reinforcing the frame of the future “moderate left” being variations on “market liberal” and the future “radical left” mostly being or containing versions of “market anarchism” (until eventually the “market” part gets dropped because it’s just taken for granted and goes without saying).
My proposed umbrella term for neo-libertarian conservatoids, minarchists and partyarchs is also the term favored by the Cato Institute, so there is some appropriate precedent there. It’s “market liberal”.
I believe this serves our purposes by complementing the term “market anarchist”, potentially reinforcing the frame of the future “moderate left” being variations on “market liberal” and the future “radical left” mostly being or containing versions of “market anarchism” (until eventually the “market” part gets dropped because it’s just taken for granted and goes without saying).
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
I like it alot, in no small part because of the potential secondary effect of rescuing the term "liberal".
But the LP will never go for it. They think they're the ones working for freedom.
I don't like the idea of lumping it all into "left", though. It reinforces a broken way of dividing of the politcal problem space.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
Words, meh.....
Brainpolice: Words, meh.....
Yeah, while I initally like the idea of calling the LP out on it and distinguishing them from libertarianism, it would add on yet another term and/or label to the dialouge, furthering word soup, which isn't something I would cheer for.
Words mean things, except when they don't.
The problem today is that the language itself has become an ideological battleground, and I oscillate between not wanting to further that and not wanting to concede the battle.
histhasthai: Brainpolice: Words, meh..... Words mean things, except when they don't. The problem today is that the language itself has become an ideological battleground, and I oscillate between not wanting to further that and not wanting to concede the battle.
The real issue here is that the word "libertarian" whether the L is small or big, has a lot of unwanted baggage attached to it. On the other hand, it also has a lot of good things associated with it that we do want to attach ourselves to. I don't know what the solution is but I doubt you can make the LP change their use of words, so if words are the problem you'll have to change your own use of them. This includes telling people the LP isnt really libertarian, but such battles don't usually go over too well. We haven't had much luck with "liberal." I'm starting to refer to think words like agorist, market anarchist and voluntarist are better, but of course I'm not ready to give up on "libertarian" just yet. As long as you can get your point across, use whatever words seem best to that end.
It seems to me that what is most important is not rescueing words so much as meanings and ideas.
Brainpolice: It seems to me that what is most important is not rescueing words so much as meanings and ideas.
Indeed, I find the perceptions of concepts should be debated more up-front, as chasms of disagreements (often together with ad-hom) develop & can retard a debate's progression. I'm not advocating forcing this though ("You better argue like I tell you, or else!" would be contradictory, silly, and only fuel ad-hom), as often debates end up addressing it; but I do think it should be sooner addressed rather than later. For example, the recent debates concerning left-libertarianism; I find it utterly ridiculous some might equate left-libertarianism as favoring Statism more than "right" libertarianism, and then somewhat foo foo'ing attempts at elaborating what left-libertarianism means as excuses because a certain amount of people don't use "x" term or "y" concept a certain way, etc.I realize not every libertarian/an-cap/whatever does that, so I don't want anyone to think I'm vastly generalizing everyone who disagrees me as falling under such conduct, as that is also another counter from many who might say left-libertarianism is more collectivist (again, possibly due to confusions regarding left-libertarianism being more sympathetic to Statism, which is absurd, especially when you consider Agorism). It is rather frustrating though, especially with the obvious implications of libertarianism (politically, at least) being continually watered down in favor of new conservatism (in comparison to radical libertarianism); left-libertarianism in that context is more true to the principles of libertarianism & therefore, more radical. I ultimaltey don't think this post was that productive aside from slight venting & re-establishing what has been previously discussed, though. I am beginning to think that maybe there should be a book devoted to the meta-debate on the debate of libertarianism, however. Something that would cover the various concepts, terms, stances, trends, etc; something sort of like "Apolitical Libertarianism For Dummies" or "A Guide to Libertarianism Vol 1: :insert title: ", etc.