Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:27 pm

Gloominary wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:35 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:30 pm
You're on a fucking philosophy site mate, if you want to be taken seriously, don't pull an obvious stunt like that and then try to pretend it's just semantics.

Otherwise, go and find people who haven't read any philosophy, and sell your sub-standard shit to someone who can't spot the flaws in your case. What you are presenting here needs a complete rethink because it isn't very good.

Learn the difference between defining, and redefining, I can redefine something however I wish.
My redefinition of property strays significantly, but not entirely, from what the current definition is, as it should, it's a redefinition.
I refuse to let my mind and my language be bound by the conceptual limitations the system you're attempting to uphold has imposed.

Uhm, I was the one who pointed out to you that you weren't using the normal definition. And I was the one who told you that you were redefining. Until I spelled that shit out for you, you weren't smart enough to get the point you are trying to make here.

So don't tell me to learn from you, that which you only know because I am nice enough to teach you.

If you wantonly redefine shit without giving a good reason why anyone should accept this new definition you are just one random guy using a word incorrectly. If you want to explain how cars, fridges and telephones are no longer property, feel free to give that a shot. I'm sure we can all really learn something of use, one way or the other, from what will obviously be classic action.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2017 3:28 pm Libertarians like to refer to their ideal state as minarchist, meaning government ought to minimally intervene in the economy and affairs of the people, but can a state be more minarchist than a libertarian state, without descending into complete anarchy?

I think it can, for example, I'm not sure if this is an essential component of libertarianism, but you could do away with intellectual property rights, meaning you could say open up a Starbucks, without paying tribute to Starbucks, which would mean less intervention in the economy.

You could also only protect the property of people who use it.
For example, if someone were to purchase property, but fail to use it, after a while, say one year, they would forfeit their ownership, and it wouldn't belong to anyone anymore, it'd be up for grabs.
Whoever starts living there, if anyone, to them belongs the property.
This would mean government would intervene less in the economy, because it would recognize fewer things as property.
It would also mean governments conception of property or who owns what would be more fluid.

There's all sorts of ways a state could intervene less than even libertarians are advocating, and reducing state intervention in such ways could be beneficial for society.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:35 pm I refuse to let my mind and my language be bound by the conceptual limitations the system you're attempting to uphold has imposed.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:44 pm Mate, with the best will in the world, you wrote this sentence.

Gloominary wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:35 pm I refuse to let my mind and my language be bound by the conceptual limitations the system you're attempting to uphold has imposed.

You are a long way from being up to an actual philosophical conversation.

-1- wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:33 am What's the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy?