Not bad! We have now shown that argumentation must presuppose each person owns its own body. The denial of this is a performative contradiction. But wait… before we can go and calmly smoke whatever we want, knowing we justifiably own our body, we must first also deal with the question of conflicts over external, rivalrous resources. That’s what we’ll be smoking.
I admit I haven’t gone over Hoppe’s stuff yet, but I do have some questions. First, I can see how, in order for an argument to take place, you must respect my right to self-ownership and I must in turn show you the same respect. But what happens once we stop arguing? Don’t we then lose the ability to claim rights to our bodies? That’s to say, if you want to argue with Bob, he can justifiably demand that you not violently assault him, but what if you don’t want to argue with him? What rights can he demand in that case.
And, perhaps this question is related: I can see how trying to argue against the NAP is self-contradictory, but I don’t see how that establishes that the NAP is true. Again, it might be true that if you want to argue, you should not violent someone else’s person, but how does this establish the NAP as a true, justifiable statement with normative force? It seems more like the NAP is just a means to the end of arguing.
But what happens once we stop arguing? Don’t we then lose the ability to claim rights to our bodies? That’s to say, if you want to argue with Bob, he can justifiably demand that you not violently assault him, but what if you don’t want to argue with him? What rights can he demand in that case.
None. Neither rights nor the NAP objectively exist in and of themselves (Is-Ought Dichotomy). Ethics concerns itself only with what is justified and justification takes place only in the course of an argument. If someone would decide to violate your self-ownership Argumentation Ethics shows us he will not be able to justify his actions, as he will be trapped in self contradiction.
Alright, but how do we explain the gap from “you can own property so that you may survive during argumentation” to “you may own ginormous expanses of land”? Moreover, why specifically the right-lib definition of property?
I think you (and Hoppe) fail to make the case for universalizability and against arbitrariness, which is not the same thing as a double standard. For example, that a red light means stop and a green light means go is arbitrary because it could be otherwise without changing the function of traffic lights. Regarding universalizability, it only holds within the context of the argument. When I pressupose the norms of argumentation, I don’t presuppose them for all individuals in the world, only those involved in discourse. So while I can’t argue against self-ownership universally, I can do so with distinction: “eskimos are not self-owners because they are subhuman” - I might be wrong, but I haven’t wrapped myself up in any sort of performative contradiction.
And regarding performative contradictions, its worth repeating from another post of mine that contradictions can never actually be performed, they can’t exist in nature, ever. Whats happening is the expression of 2 separate propositions, both of which cannot be simultaneously true. The reason why I am on Hoppe’s side on this, is that I think that act, the one of expressing 2 propositions which are mutually exclusive, is something not permitted in argumentation, which is why it cannot be justified. So its not because its an attempt to justify a contradiction, but rather because its an attempt to assert something without any way to justify it.
Finally, just because I can’t justify a slavery norm doesn’t mean that therefore a non-slavery norm is justified. That justification needs to happen on its own, and is still subject to criticism. There is difference between being justifiable and being justified, and all AE does is address the former.
Also, and you seem to be aware of this but I’m just pointing it out, this whole thing is operating in the bracketted context of argumentation. It shouldn’t ever be taken as approaching moral realism, because its just not equipped to handle that kind of metaphysical baggage. And outside of argumentation (which is stipulated in a way to make these conclusions meaningful), one is still free to do as one wishes.
from “you can own property so that you may survive during argumentation” to “you may own ginormous expanses of land”?
I’m not sure where you got statement 1? (or statement 2)
I’ll just say a few things about homesteading.
You can see that ArgEthics grounds homesteading as an act that serves a practical usage, allowing conflicts to be peacfuly resolved. Imagine someone fenced a small circle of land and then proclaimed everything outside the circle to be his own. Since the earth is a sphere this is mathematically correct, he just fenced the rest of the earth. This “fence” however does not serve as an objective evident link to anyone who wants to make use land somewhere in the world (forgetting this also includes previously homesteaded land) An abnormal “marking”, such as “fencing” Alaska is thus not homesteading as it cannot serve as an evident link of ownership.
“why specifically the right-lib definition of property?”
Please forgive me, as I’m not specifly familiar with the left-lib definition. I would note that the definition of “usage” as a standard (syndicalists) is subjective and so cannot serve as an objective link to a resource, only a change of physical characteristics can. If as years go by, entropy slowly turns the neglected property to be a part of nature- it is faire gain once more.
…it only holds within the context of the argument.
Of course everything is only relevant in as far as actors engage in argument. Rocks don’t have rights, clouds don’t have rights, dead bodies don’t have rights. It is only when conscious people start to argue that the question of ethics and rights arises. This by no means weakens the argument! To the contrary, this is precisely the basic starting point any such argument must take. You and I are now engaged in argument. We assume claims must be jusfied, True is better that false, ext.
I have adressed some of these points in the second post. I will quote:
Second [objection]-
What you say may be relevant for the actual participants in argument, but it is not relevant to a third party. When I’m speaking to you, I can’t logically say I own you body, but, I can say I own someone else’s body with no contradiction. Imagine two slave owners talking to each other.
You must remember, we are talking about dispute resolution. When one say’s “I own someone’s body“ he is really saying, I prefer unjustified violence to discourse in some cases. One cannot justify such a claim in an argument, which presupposes justification has nothing to do with force of violence (and everything to do with content). True, one can, however, babel as much as he wants, If he were to act on his beliefs he then could not justify his actions in argument. Actual violent actions can’t be justified, only the NAP.
This is a issue that I never considered before, but the difference between an individual being capable of rational thought and believing an individual is capable of rational thought is significant:
Imagine that it turns out eskimos are robots left on this planet by a bunch of aliens millenia ago, yet you and I are completely unware of this fact. We are having an argument where I try to justify the keeping of eskimo slaves and you make the case that I cannot justify such a position…yada yada yada.
It seems to me that, assuming AE is correct, you would have a valid case in this argument - even though the premises we are operating under are completely false, the performative contradiction still occurs because I am trying to justify a norm while presupposing its falsehood. Now if I were aware that eskimos were robots, or even if they weren’t and just believed it to be the case, I wouldn’t be presupposing that eskimos are people anymore than I would be when I argue that its ok for me to own cats, dogs, and iPhones.
I think that you would also have to come to the conclusion that slavery norms in previous centuries were justifiable (not necessarily justified, though) in terms of AE because blacks were viewed as lesser men than whites, barbarians lesser than Greeks, and so on.
There is overwhelming evidence that blacks can engage and discourse and understand property. A belief to the contrary can be shown to be false, even in past centuries. It is therefore indefensible to believe otherwise (and to deny true is better than false would void the debate and imply a contradiction). There is overwhelming evidence eskimos have free will, and are not robots as well.
Regarding a distinction between the NAP being the only norm justifiable and not being justified- I don’t think it is substantial. Argumentation implies seeking a non-violent norm- and only one nonviolent consistant norm exist.
If you’ll write on paper and put it in a bottle there is no implied contradiction with presupposition of argumentation (there is no argumentation).
If you want to argue over the use of someone’s body and then propose such an arbitrary norm you are inconsistent with argumentation, as this cannot be justified (please read the article if you haven’t).
It doesn’t matter if it’s black/white, white/black, jews/christians, it is arbitrary. just something you say. Since we are arguing, I don’t agree with this claim. what justification for such a distinction you have?
My purely subjective valuation/judgment/preference of chess’s ability to determine who should be enslaved by whom. What justification do you have to disagree with my claim?
If you hold subjective preference to be justification we cannot resolve our argument by discourse. Only if objectively justify our claims can we do so. To argue an arbitrary subjective statement is justified simply isn’t consistent with the presupposition of discourse.
What preferences other than subjective could anyone possibly hold? What objective justification do you have for claiming that you are not my slave or that you ought not to be one? More importantly, how am I performing a contradiction by arguing that you are, or ought to be, my slave?
“What preferences other than subjective could anyone possibly hold?”
You are proposing to make a distinction between us, because you subjectively prefer though I do not. You have no objective justification for it. Do you deny claims need to be justified, or you can just say whatever you want? If every subjective, arbitrary claim is legitimate, we cannot argumentatbly resolve our disputes. (have you read the article?)
“What objective justification do you have for claiming that you are not my slave or that you ought not to be one?”
Since we presuppose argumentative propositions should have justification, and your proposed “chess” distinction has no justification, if you hold it you are claiming justification is not needed, which contradicts what is logically presupposed if we aim to resolve ownership by means of discourse.
“More importantly, how am I performing a contradiction by arguing that you are, or ought to be, my slave?”
Because you are denying justification for propositions is required there by not allowing our dispute to be peacefully resolved base on propositions- which is the point of the argument.
