Wild Pegasus

Thanks for the heads-up. Non-objective would be the meaning I intended to convey. - Josh

To argue and learn. That seems obvious enough. Language as concept simply doesn't work. "The dog slept green fiercely." That's a perfectly good example of English except it doesn't mean anything. Primarily vocal gestures are the basic building block of language. Concepts, among other things, can be conveyed through language. - Josh

You expect people to voluntarily give their money to the government when they expect someone else does? That has two problems, both related to selfishness: 1. If someone else is expected to pay for something, people will rarely pay for it. This is called The Free Rider Problem. 2. He who pays the piper calls the tune. A government funded voluntarily by some sector of society will soon use it monopoly power to accrue benefits for its contributors. - Josh

Nope, I'm moving forward through the history of Western thought. As such, I get to Ayn Rand when I get to the 20th century. I just finished Aristotle (at least, most of his major works). An objective definition of language would mean that every linguistic sound has an objective meaning. People who use an objective theory of math say that the concept of two (not necessarily the word "two" but the concept) can only refer to a thing and an additional thing and nothing else. People who use an objective theory of value say that every item has an unchanging, predefined value. If someone wants to use an objective theory of language, each linguistic unit has to have an objective meaning. This leads to the conclusion that there can only be one objectively correct human language. If pas means "not" in French and "all" in Greek, one or both are wrong about meaning of the sound. This is obvious nonsense, since the purpose of language is to communicate. If a person says "pas" and the hearer understands "not", the purpose is accomplished. This doesn't mean that languages are without standards, just that there is no such thing as an objectively correct language. When you drop a loaded term like "liberty" into a world of extremely intelligent, grossly unethical people billing $500/hr., you've just poured blood into shark waters. Concepts may or may not be objective(1), but concepts and language are not the same thing. Have you ever been unable to come up with the appropriate word or phrase to describe something? Have you ever considered the difficulties in translating a concept in a foreign language into English (consider eudaimonia)? These are indications that thought is different from language. Related, yes. Identical, no. (1) My first thought, off the cuff, is that some concepts are objective - the concept of two - and some are not - the concept of love. - Josh

Who said anything about personal whim? The policies would more than likely be standard issue within the defence agency itself. Moreover, your argument continues to fail for the same reason I mentioned above: you haven't established why the possible failure of anarchism is a necessary failure of anarchism, nor why the establishment of a state necessarily solves the problem. Again, neither did liberal federated democratic republics at one time. Would you have opposed them then because they had never been proven? Many people did, but that's not a terribly convincing argument. The classic conservative "We've always done it this way!" isn't exactly a convincing argument in philosophy. Moreover, your objection to anarchism isn't even ethics-based. What would you say to someone who object to free market capitalism on utilitarian grounds? Who's denying enforcement? - Josh

There is no objective body of procedural law. Substantative law, yes. Procedural law, no. If you disagree, you can start by telling me whether a constitutional amendment should be ratified by 3/4ths of the states or 2/3rds of the states. After that, I have about 10,000 more procedural questions you can address. Governments may ignore procedural due process, and a stateless legal system may observe due process. Your argument fails because you've incorrectly jumped from a possibility (retribution in the absence of a state may violate rights) to a necessity (retribution in the absence of a state will violate rights). No anarchist is claiming a right to retribution over and above the objective standard. Everything was new once. Liberal federated democratic republics were considered equally fanciful in the 16th century. - Josh

However, language is inherently inobjective. Terms change meaning over time. Phrases mean different things to different people. Judges take different views on how to construe the terms of a statute. Making rules of interpretation means interpreting the rules of interpretation themselves, which leads to the same problem as before. Where exactly does the money for the government come from? - Josh