If the parent poster is correct to point out some flaws in the original article, what makes you think I am not correct when I point out some flaws in the parent

If the parent poster is correct to point out some flaws in the original article, what makes you think I am not correct when I point out some flaws in the parent poster's comment? However, I do agree with you that words and ideologies have meaning at some point. I just think that the supposed meaning often differs; usually even for those who have subscribed to a certain ideology. Taking about ideologies: Try to read the original article with open eyes. Some of his points do not just apply to the Libertartian position, in particular, but to ideologies, in general. Even if he misunderstand or over-emphasized some details -- how can his general arguments be wrong? You would have to argue that Libertarism is not an ideology or dogmatic point of view to counter them. Additionally, even some of his concrete points seem logical: For instance, do you have the freedom to travel when all land is privately owned? Doesn't look like much freedom to me. If you now argue that this is not the Libertarian position, then please take the time and explain what the Libertarian position is. How much land should be owned by the public, represented by the government? What is the Libertarian position on the commons? Who is going to defend the commons against greed and private interests according to the Libertarian ideology?