What political ideology are you and why?

[Frisco]

Could it not be helpful in conversation to suggest that an "extreme Libertarian" would be one whose philosophy and political agenda match, a "moderate Libertarian" would be one whose philosophy and political agenda match in a moderate way, and a "weak Libertarian" would be one whose philosophy and political agenda don't match at all?

Because that's how I understand it, and it makes sense to me when someone describes themselves in that way.

I think basing one's political agenda 100% on philosophical principles is a terrible idea, and if we only have words to describe those positions, it can only lead to more, and less accurate, argument.

[Athias]

Could it not be helpful in conversation to suggest that an "extreme Libertarian" would be one whose philosophy and political agenda match, a "moderate Libertarian" would be one whose philosophy and political agenda match in a moderate way, and a "weak Libertarian" would be one whose philosophy and political agenda don't match at all?

Because that's how I understand it, and it makes sense to me when someone describes themselves in that way.

I think basing one's political agenda 100% on philosophical principles is a terrible idea, and if we only have words to describe those positions, it can only lead to more, and less accurate, argument.

Let's take my example of unmodifiable democrats: tell me how can one believe in the right to health care service in an extreme degree? To a moderate degree? The modifier, extreme, is a reflection of a critic's standard not that of the ideology or phillosophy being criticized. It's just like muslim extremists. If the objective rule of the Muslim faith is to ... then as long as one follows ... they're being Muslim. "Extreme" is an exogenous qualification. There's no nuance in the standard itself. As long as you're adhering to the standard, you're satisfying the objective. The only reason extreme libertarians are given the modifier extreme is because they're deviating from some degree imposed by critics, not because they're adherence represents a degree of libertarianism. There are no degrees to libertarianism. Do you believe in voluntary associations? Yes or No. Do you believe in peaceful interaction? Yes or No. Do you believe in self-ownership? Yes or No.

If one's going to don the label "extreme libertarian" or "moderate libertarian," then it has to be by libertarianism's own standard. Otherwise the modifiers extreme and moderate are just qualifications independent of libertarianism. In my opinion, libertarians who seek to modify their libertarianism want to maintain their notions of liberty while silmutaneously maintaining notions that would contradict them.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Language is a social creation with terms whose meanings rest only on convention, and libertarianism is far and away more commonly used in the political sense- advocating for reduction in size and scope of government- than in the sense of adhering to a moral liberty principle. In the more common usage, it makes perfect sense to speak of extreme or moderate gradients of libertarianism, as in advocating for relatively greater or lesser reduction in size and scope of government. If you describe yourself as 'libertarian' to a random person you can expect your words' taken meaning to be that you adhere to some variant of political libertarianism, not to an obscure absolute principle.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

Language is a social creation with terms whose meanings rest only on convention

Interesting. So, nothing has absolute concrete meaning? Everything is subjective. The concept of a prime number is not an absolute and objective?

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Not if we change the meaning.

[Frisco]

In my opinion, libertarians who seek to modify their libertarianism want to maintain their notions of liberty while silmutaneously maintaining notions that would contradict them.

Exactly. Because sometimes political beliefs contradict philosophical ones. And they SHOULD, sometimes.

The confusion lies in conflating the political party with the philosophy. We can only work from that beginning, when it comes to communication. Arguing about the true meaning of the word is closing the gate after the cows have gotten out and is really just pedantic. "Extreme Libertarian" has a meaning--usually used by opponents to describe someone who ignores reality in favor of sticking 100% to principles. "Moderate Libertarian" is used by the person to suggest that they agree with the philosophy, but disagree with its practical application in certain respects.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

LFitA,

Then the meaning no longer descibes a number only divisable by itself and one. There is no fudge room in that definition. It is absolute, objective, and describes a concept that exists a priori becuause mathematics will not function properly if it is changed.

Sure you could call it something else, a "blarg number" instead of a "prime number" but its calling name being changed wouldn't change what it is.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

Interesting. So, nothing has absolute concrete meaning? Everything is subjective. The concept of a prime number is not an absolute and objective?

The term 'prime number' could conceivably change in meaning to no longer denote 'a number that is only divisible by 1 and and itself.' I think the concept of what we term prime numbers is tautological and absolutely true, but it could be expressed in any manner of socially created terms or symbols.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

As I said the concept of a prime number could be expressed as "blarg number" but its definiton would identical to that of a "prime number". As such not all concepts are subjective and culturally based. Some things are semantically absolute.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

As I said the concept of a prime number could be expressed as "blarg number" but its definiton would identical to that of a "prime number". As such not all concepts are subjective and culturally based. Some things are semantically absolute.

I never said the concept was subjective. I'm saying terms have socially constructed meaning. If I transported you to antiquity you could scream 'prime number' until you were blue in the face and no one would have a clue what you were talking about, despite having a handle on the concept you were attempting to express.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

True. But some of the Wittgensteinian bent have taken his absolute subjectivity claim to mean that nothing can be objective and that everything, including prime numbers, is subject to human subjectivity. That "man" truly is "the measure of all things".

[Shryke]

Scot, it's called "other languages".

Words are just collections of sounds/gestures/etc that mean what a group has collectively agreed they mean.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

Yes. My point is about some concepts having absolute meanings. "Prime Numbers" are a concept that has the same meaning regardless of language and culture.

[Shryke]

Shryke,

Yes. My point is about some concepts having absolute meanings. "Prime Numbers" are a concept that has the same meaning regardless of language and culture.

You can't communicate a concept with a shared language. Certainly not a political one.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

You can't communicate a concept with a shared language. Certainly not a political one.

I think you mean "without".

[maarsen]

LFitA,

Then the meaning no longer descibes a number only divisable by itself and one. There is no fudge room in that definition. It is absolute, objective, and describes a concept that exists a priori becuause mathematics will not function properly if it is changed.

Sure you could call it something else, a "blarg number" instead of a "prime number" but its calling name being changed wouldn't change what it is.

The Greeks defined a point, a line, and other mathematical constructs using a language that is archaic and mostly unknown now. Needless to say, the concepts are still understood in just about any language spoken here on Earth, and if we do ever make contact with alien species, I expect they will understand the concepts also. There are absolutes in this world. Just damn few.

[Athias]

Language is a social creation with terms whose meanings rest only on convention, and libertarianism is far and away more commonly used in the political sense- advocating for reduction in size and scope of government- than in the sense of adhering to a moral liberty principle. In the more common usage, it makes perfect sense to speak of extreme or moderate gradients of libertarianism, as in advocating for relatively greater or lesser reduction in size and scope of government. If you describe yourself as 'libertarian' to a random person you can expect your words' taken meaning to be that you adhere to some variant of political libertarianism, not to an obscure absolute principle.

That's a bit tautological. The designated word represents a distinct notion, which remains objective regardless of what word represents it. Libertarianism being used colloquially doesn't mean that the colloquialism delineates the notion it represents. You're essentially arguing that anarchists, minarchists, and statists have a claim to the word because of modern convention alone. With that word, there's a tether to the notion of libertarianism. Otherwise, there'd be no need to ascribe libertarianism even if the recognition of the concept has become antiquated. Arguments over the scope of government presence are easily epitomized by arguments among minarchists, anarchists, and statists. So why libertarianism? Because the "obscure absolute principle" has presence.

"Moderate Libertarian" is used by the person to suggest that they agree with the philosophy, but disagree with its practical application in certain respects.

Then why would one endorse the philosophy? If the philosophy is premised on fundamental prinicples, then how that philosophy manifests in its practical administration should be consistent in all respects. The problem must then be that you neither hold the philosophy consistently nor principally. Hence you are not a libertarian. Libertarianism doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are some tenets of Libertarianism with which you may agree. That does not make you a libertarian. If you maintain libertarian priniciples as principal objectives -- in which case, you wouldn't find any of its practical applications disagreeable -- then you are a libertarian. Modifiers like moderate or extreme would be irrelevant. The same applies to any philosophy or poltical ideology.

Idealism and Pragmatism are not mutually exclusive. Ideally, one should inform the other.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I'm selling tickets to the Post-Structuralist, Structuralist and Post-Modernist battle royal. $40 bucks a head, $50 additional to attend the after-party orgy. Discounts for Seniors and anyone bringing a copy of Foucault.

[Frisco]

Then why would one endorse the philosophy? If the philosophy is premised on fundamental prinicples, then how that philosophy manifests in its practical administration should be consistent in all respects.

The philosophy is premised on a utopia. Whereas humanity as a whole, in reality, is one giant pile of assholes. One can believe that certain aspects of *any* philosophy would be wonderful in theory and still believe that it would be a giant snafu to try and put it into practice.

[all swedes are racist]

I'm selling tickets to the Post-Structuralist, Structuralist and Post-Modernist battle royal. $40 bucks a head, $50 additional to attend the after-party orgy. Discounts for Seniors and anyone bringing a copy of Foucault.

Any bitcoin discount?