How is it irrational to suggest that it's okay to use a word based on the meaning implied by its etymology rather than the meaning with which it was traditional

How is it irrational to suggest that it's okay to use a word based on the meaning implied by its etymology rather than the meaning with which it was traditionally used? Language isn't static; words change and grow in meaning over time. Look at 'capitalist' for instance; the sense in which it's used by capitalists now differs from its exact meaning when originally coined by Marx. The focus of ancaps is on direct force because ancaps consider that kind of coercion bad. They don't consider indirect force similarly bad, as I've described previously. This is a philosophical difference between ancaps and traditional anarchists. You speak of 'privileges'; ancaps are pro privilege. Privilege to people who save more and/or people who invest productively. Why? Because saving and investment is vital for economic growth. If there is no benefit to saving/investing, no 'privilege', then people will have no incentive to save or invest, and development will be slower. This is one reason ancaps support private property rather than just possessions, as private people is required for people to be able to accumulate property, to be able to save. You're speaking of land being occupied in the sense of actual active usage, I was speaking of it being occupied in the sense of being owned by someone. This is what I mean about communication being difficult when the meanings of terms used aren't agreed upon beforehand; two people can make statements that are both valid but mean different things, talking past each other. You're correct in saying there's lots of unoccupied land in the anarchist sense of occupation, but I'm correct in saying there's no unoccupied land in the sense that all land is legally considered someone's private property. How would people not need to work if all land was being cultivated or in use? It would depend on the use; if for instance all the land was being used for subsistence farming, people would definitely still need to work, as land doesn't farm itself. >Finally, your whole argument stems from the fact that you see private-property as some form of natural law You've hit the nail on the head there; ancaps literally do consider property a 'natural right', and have made various arguments for this. This is a fundamental difference between libertarian and non-libertarian types. Land ownership may be considered a form of investment. Much as someone can own lots of gold they can't physically use themselves, someone is allowed to own lots of land in a libertarian framework. Ancaps would argue that aggression isn't required in maintaining private property, as they're treating private property as a natural right, and thus any attempt to deprive a person of their property consists of a violation of that right, and therefore someone defending their property is considered to be acting in self-defense, not aggressively. Essentially, if property is considered a natural right than the person trying to take the property is the aggressor, whereas if it's not considered a natural right (or moral equivalent, whatever the terminology) then the person defending the property is the aggressor. The issue thus ultimately comes down to the one's view on private property. Which, as I've stated, I consider a matter of personal moral philosophy, as I don't believe in absolute objective answers to moral questions.