GameMusic

GameMusic t1_j101fhs wrote

I will great that his defense of caveats was poor but the rest has value

‘Genuine’ authoritarians. ‘Actual’ libertarians. ‘True’ Anarchists. They forego entire movements and ideologies if it doesn’t meet their own self-crafted definitions.

His usage is compatible with the early usage of those words

Any political language is incredibly propagandized and you always have to balance the challenges of creating different words or redefinition from the popular usage

The fact is nothing can be said in politics or philosophy without either creating local definition within your work or assuming your audience shares your personal language

People who avoid this often have propagandistic motives

In popular usage most political words mean everything and nothing

14

GameMusic t1_j0zzaij wrote

This is why I like the idea of some voluntary system of actual social contracts - some basic minimal law plus a legal framework you sign

Right now something similar would be moving to states with laws that reconcile with your values but that is not practical for most

But technology could make this viable

Imagine economic and governmental systems competing for members in the same geographic area but a baseline legal minimum and systems of tariff to prevent one system from bypassing the regulation of another

0

GameMusic t1_j0zx588 wrote

You attack the thought by your objection with his wording but that is pretty much compatible with his point

Words are built in systems and making original points requires either new words or a temporary best fit redefinition

It does not matter whether authority can be classified within one word but two different ideas by the linguistic taste you have personally developed

The difference was stated without confusion either way

5