Yeah, that doesn’t really work. If we are human-like creatures, or exactly like real people, then that presupposes the existence of humans and real people in an objective reality outside of the solipsist’s mind, to whom it is possible to compare his mind-people (i.e. us). Which is exactly what the solipsist doesn’t believe exists in the first place. So the proof falls down.

And it doesn’t really matter what a solipsist thinks or how to prove him wrong, because the point I was making is that libertarians are not solipsists, and anyone who thinks they are doesn’t know the meaning of the word.

As far as use of the word ’selfishness’ goes – I personally make a point of using it. I’m reclaiming it for libertarians. We may never be able to erase its negative connotations, but if enough of us act virtuously and label it selfishness, we can at least open people’s minds to the fact that words actually mean something. It’ll be another way to differentiate ourselves positively from the current bastards who throw around words like ‘fascist’ and ‘progressive’ as if they were confetti.

If these came purely from the “state”, then you could replace libertarian by minarchist but we are just as against enforcement of controls via religion (Saudi, Eire, Iran) as via, for example, the militantly anti-religious states of North Korea and China.

The argument against a solipsist who claims we’re all figments of his thought processes is: if we are complex, perfectly human-like entities which exist inside his mind, then the “inside his mind” part adds nothing, and gets culled by Occam’s razor. If it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. If we function exactly like real people, we are real people. I mention this because if libertarian “selfishness” includes charity and kindness and values external to the self, it isn’t selfishness.

I used to try to bring everything under the banner of selfishness. I used to argue that an apparently selfless act, like sacrificing one’s life for the sake of the growth of knowledge (somehow), could be in fact selfish, since the abstract external principle one dies for is something one personally cares about a lot. This is a stupidly contrived argument, rather like the one that says solid objects are mostly made of nothing and never touch, due to the massive gaps between the atoms within molecules. It’s technically correct, but a blatantly ridiculous way to look at the world, so what’s the point?

The point is to express rejection of the ideology of compulsory giving. The best way, then, to say that is to spell it out, and forget the whole misleading “selfishness” business. Even the term “individualist” tends to confuse people. Socialism is attractive because of the popular fear that free-acting individuals will be bastards. Libertarians tend to fuel that fear, for fun, by posing like bastards (and then quietly mentioning that we’re not really). It’s a bad habit.

Comments on what other blogs? I must knooooooooow…

From comments on other blogs and the unavailability of his URL, I understand that your good husband has laid down his bloodied sword. Please reassure us that this is not so.