off-topic
I’ll echo Solid_Choke and liberty student’s call for you to provide a succinct outline of Hoppe’s conception of justice. If you expect others to provide a comprehensible but succinct theory, you ought to be able to do the same. Then a discussion can actually begin.
Not to single you out, Michael J Green, because you made less egregious off-topic posts than some others, but this is not what this thread is about. The question is not a comparitive one. By anti-Hoppean, I don’t actually mean you oppose Hoppe’s theory necessarily, though this is mainly who needs to answer the question. Hoppe has even made a defense of Rothbardian ethics on many occasions.
And, obviously, that one is unable or unwilling to provide a competing ‘theory of justice’ has no bearing on the quality of your own theory.
Strawman.
Strawman. I never said it was. I am genuinely curious about legal ideas of people who are self-styled libertarians and simultaneously reject Hoppe’s argument. I’m not interested in your opinion on Hoppe though because it routinely doesn’t go much past “He’s wrong”. I want to know what you people have to say besides dropping De Jasay’s name.
Just as a “sentence”, as a matter of a priori necessity, must contain a verb, no (non-assertive) “question” could ever be a non sequitur.
It’s pretty clear from recent experience to me that you are so intellectually dishonest that you can’t answer a simple yes or no question. It doesn’t seem likely that reporting a moderator for being off-topic (you know, that rule you are supposed to enforce) will do very much, so I am likely to ignore your nonsense in the future.
Is this an argumentum ad populem?
All I’ve personally seen is either people not having read any Hoppe (see John Ess’ post) and buying into Anti-Hoppean garbage, or attempted arguments being swatted (see the appropriate thread to discuss “AE”/not this one in case you still don’t get the topic).
While it is great to command people to spend an hour or five writing out justifications for their ethical stances, those ethical positions have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not AE is based on sound premises.
Strawman. You should just say nothing if you can’t defend you own position. I probably missed some of your other logical fallacies. Please, check yourself because it has become beyond ridiculous.
(Lilburne debate is happening when? Defeating Lilburne in that debate with one sentence is happening when?)
His error is very simple. So is yours claiming(?) that “a pint of blueberries” or a “shekel” is “purely subjective” (see the thread where you refuse to answer a simple yes or no question and compare Block’s theory of proportionality to the “labour theory of value”).
As I said before, I started writing up something and am somewhat curious what the response will be but didn’t get around to finishing it. I really don’t see how a debate could come from his post, or he could do anything besides immediately concede his error. It really isn’t worth my time to do it unless I am working on advancing my own theory. Considering that Lilburne is apparently so ignorant of the use of quotation marks in contemporary philosophy to constantly call their use “scare quotes”, that no forum neophyte has any substantive response to my comments on Reinach’s philosophy or phenomenology and its possible application to Austrian theory (Ibid.), etc., I’m in no hurry.
Every time Lilburne brings up this subject (or his attack dogs such as yourself), I’m going to remind you of my original response to his supposed refutation. Make a Mises Daily, write a journal article, send an email to Hoppe about it and post his response. Wouldn’t that be a damn shame if your “resounding refutation” of the major theory of Hoppe went down like the Titanic because o’le Olovetto never made the debate thread?
on topic
Hasnas: Toward a Theory of Empirical Natural Rights is more up my alley. Starting pg. 14 (124).
Z.
Are you an anarchist?
I’ve lain out the following analogy before, please tell me if you understand the relationship and explain it if possible:
economic theory:econometrics::legal philosophy:jurisprudence