From: Steve Davies (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Thu Oct 24 2002 - 11:11:08 MDT
Steve Davies writes
> To be really pedantic (but also precise) for a moment - I think the
original
> poster should have had "why anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in
terms".
> *Not* the same thing as an oxymoron! Thinking of it that way also makes
it
> easier to see what the argument is about, i.e. it's about the definition
of
> the two constituent terms "anarchy" and "capitalism". Either or both of
> these can be defined in a way that makes their conjunction a CIT but if
so
> you should be explicit and honest that that's what you're doing.
Doubtless; but it's also news to me that the claim is imprecise.
Now dictionary.com supplies
ox·y·mo·ron Pronunciation Key (ks-môrn, -mr-)
n. pl. ox·y·mo·ra (-môr, -mr) or ox·y·mo·rons
A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or
contradictory terms are combined, as in a
"deafening silence" and a "mournful optimist".
[Greek oxumron, from neuter of oxumros, pointedly
foolish: oxus, sharp; see oxygen + mros, foolish, dull.]
Would you mind explaining exactly why "anarcho-capitalism"
is *not* an oxymoron given that the original poster believed
it to be a contradiction in terms?
Thanks,
Lee
Sure. By my understanding "anarcho-capitalism *is* an oxymoron today because
the two terms are generally seen as incongruous. As the definition states an
oxymoron is a figure of speech (trope) which combines incongruous terms, one
of which at least is usually a quality as opposed to an entity. The point is
this is done for effect, the incongruity is used to make the idea arresting
(and hence persuasive). There is no implication that the entity the oxymoron
refers to is impossible. A contradiction in terms is an argument or
definition where the terms of the definition/argument are mutually exclusive
e.g "a wet dryness". It's clear this is what people like the original poster
mean since they define market relations as inherently oppressive or
domination generating by their nature, hence if anarchy is defined as being
the absence of such relations it and capitalism are mutually exclusive. I
agree with Mike Lorrey that this is a specious form of special pleading
since it involves ignoring the well known and accepted definitions of the
terms. Steve Davies
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:45 MST