As you say, it worked, which is what counts with language. "Anarchy" also means "chaos", which is no more accurate, but widely used. (More widely that the proper meaning, if anything.)
Personally I think "libertarian" should apply to a general love of liberty: it's a pain to prefix it with "civil" every time I use it.
JSM made his pro-hanging speech after the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, so the only things you could be hanged for were treason, murder, piracy, and, bizarrely, arson in the royal dockyards. (The last was probably unnoticed. It was quietly abolished in the 1960s when someone found it.)
I don't see how supporting capital punishment for murderers is inherently utilitarian. (Mill was of course a utilitarian, but that's by the by.) I support it, and I can't stand utilitarianism!But it does need its context not quite the 180 contradiction but I see how he got the utilitarian label.
- I love these guys, they're the gift that just keeps on giving. They'd make good characters in an Enid Blyton novel: the Free Market Four, the Fredrich von Hayek four? Fighting shifty looking socialists with the help of lashings of Ayn Rand!
I don't see how supporting capital punishment for murderers is inherently utilitarian. (Mill was of course a utilitarian, but that's by the by.) I support it, and I can't stand utilitarianism!
Ah, the Freedom Association, founded by the butt of my favourite "knock knock" joke.
"knock knock"
"who's there?"
BANG!
- I love these guys, they're the gift that just keeps on giving. They'd make good characters in an Enid Blyton novel: the Free Market Four, the Fredrich von Hayek four? Fighting shifty looking socialists with the help of lashings of Ayn Rand!
Well I have read it and there is a lot I like.
If they stand for election where I have a vote I would vote for them.
Where are you Stoat boy?
He he, they look like a bunch of little monkeys!!
Altho the argument over 'ownership' of the word libertarian, coming from anarchists and others who have some interesting things to say about the concept of ownership, is extremely funny too.
Exactly. "Libertarian" works just as well for "someone who promotes liberty", without the free market or anarchist connotations. I can see why the laissez faire brigade want to use it, mind: now "liberal" is becoming synonymous with social democrats, you need a word to replace "liberal" in its old classical liberal, minimal-government, free market sense.Anyone can, and does, appropriate language for their own ends [...]
Do you think he has noticed the sniper rifle silencer next to his head ?
I just find it funny that you all get so uppity about it, is all. I've said on a number of occassions that thinking you can own language is idiocy of the highest order, and this constant 'Libertarianism is actually about anarchism not about some r/wing low-tax, no welfare wet dream' thing is just old. Anyone can, and does, appropriate language for their own ends, the idea that you can somehow ringfence a term and expect it to only stay meaning one thing, within your own subjective terms of reference for it's meaning, is foolish.
Exactly. "Libertarian" works just as well for "someone who promotes liberty", without the free market or anarchist connotations. I can see why the laissez faire brigade want to use it, mind: now "liberal" is becoming synonymous with social democrats, you need a word to replace "liberal" in its old classical liberal, minimal-government, free market sense.
And no, not a monosyllabic one.
You're very naively missing the point. Which is - the term has been taken by these people and the meaning has been so distorted, in an Orwellian doublespeak way, to mean the opposite of what it originally meant and which has over 150 years of history behind it! It's this rewriting of history that annoys me.
All in the definition you choose. I'm in the negative liberty camp; you're in the positive liberty camp.If you can explain to me how you can promote liberty whilst promoting a system which restricts access to resources to the privileged few, I'm all ears.
No, you're basically saying that because a term has '150 years of history behind it' that it can't be used in any other context by anyone else - i.e. you believe that by dint of history that the word is 'owned' by one specific group of people, and that it's meaning or those using it should be what - allowed to take it and change it? That certain rules apply over who can and can't use specific bits of terminology that you feel your beliefs give you some kind of ownership over?
I'm not naively missing the point. I'm aware of what has happened and I'm aware of the difference between the two meanings of the word; what I find interesting is your seeming desire to have ownership over a word.
All in the definition you choose. I'm in the negative liberty camp; you're in the positive liberty camp.
But it's all good; "liberty" is a flexible enough a word to take it.
You can custard my Parkinson's Disease membrane.the idea that you can somehow ringfence a term and expect it to only stay meaning one thing
I believe attempts at communal distribution of resources lead to tyranny, so I support the maximum of liberty I consider practical.I'm on the -ve and +ve liberty camp. I can't see how it can be defined any other way.
Why?I believe attempts at communal distribution of resources lead to tyranny
Words just can't mean whatever people want them to mean, ignoring history.
Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty[2] and minimize or abolish the state.[3] There are a number of libertarian view points, ranging from anarchist to small government, and from anti-property to pro-property