Your question can’t be answered because it is a non-sequitur and irrelevant to whether AE is valid.
That is why Solid_Choke asked you to outline what it is you think you are talking about so he could generously respond.
AE is not a theory of law.
Your question can’t be answered because it is a non-sequitur and irrelevant to whether AE is valid.
Because you say so?
No amount of strawmen will make a theory appear for you.
No, because it is a non-sequitur. Surely a logician such as yourself can understand that.
Indeed. And no amount of demanding, bullying, being confused, obtuse or illogical will make any points in argument for you.
The point of this thread is [you] defending libertarian ethics. I don’t need an argument.
Where did I agree to defend libertarian ethics?
Whew, that’s a relief. I thought you would never figure out that you had not proposed one.
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.
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.
I think what he means to say is that there are those who do no propound a system of arugmentation ethics. I think he implicitly goes onto ask that those who don’t follow such an idea to explain their system of justice and how it is more virtious/rational then argumentation ethics.
It is not a majority position, it is a relatively unknown position outside austro-libertarian circles. It’s not even universally accepted by mainstream Austrians.
It’s more demanding of everyone else to defend their position, instead of him addressing the criticisms of AE which have already been leveled by numerous people on this forum (Lilburne debate is happening when? Defeating Lilburne in that debate with one sentence is happening when?). 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.
And that doesn’t even address ERO’s confusion about the difference between justice and law.
Hasnas: Toward a Theory of Empirical Natural Rights is more up my alley. Starting pg. 14 (124).
Z.
One could look into natural rights and various forms of Virtue ethics like that of Roderick Long or rean Norms of Liberty by Rasmussen and Den Uyl or one could also look at a slightly different take with Anthony de Jasay’s Justice and its Surroundings.
I didn’t know Argumentation Ethics was a system of justice at all though, can someone give some links?
‘It is not a majority position, it is a relatively unknown position outside austro-libertarian circles. It’s not even universally accepted by mainstream Austrians.’
This really doesn’t address what I am saying. Other people do have differing theories concerning systems of justice. Who accepts them and/or how many accept them is beside the point.
‘It’s more demanding of everyone else to defend their position, instead of him addressing the criticisms of AE which have already been leveled by numerous people on this forum (Lilburne debate is happening when? Defeating Lilburne in that debate with one sentence is happening when?). 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.’
Well then it will always be a one sided discussion. Denigrating a theory without offering something in its stead is a fruitless endeavor.
Actually, this did address what you and ERO were saying. He was trying to get someone else to put their theory out as a means of holding AE as better than the rest, instead of defending the weaknesses of AE which have nothing to do with other theories, and that wasn’t going to fly.
Unless the posting standard here has slipped that much, everyone knows that a tu quoque is unacceptable in serious discourse.
There are two positions here, can you not see them?
It is quite a ridiculous claim that substantively criticizing theory is form of denigration.
Surely you are not claiming that one party in a discussion on the merits of libertarianism must be a statist else the discussion be fruitless?
This isn’t a difference of competing philosophies. This is whether AE meets the test of being suitable for use as a theory of justice. Or is it law? We’ll have to wait for ERO to clarify which he is speaking about.
TBH Hoppe’s theory of AE and various negative demonstrations (like de Jasay’s) are the best chances an ethical theory has I think. Anything more substantive will not work and is a waste of time due to requiring too much ontological baggage to even get off the ground. Negative demonstrations show the opponent’s theory to be groundless, incoherent &c. I like theories that do the equivalent of forcing the burden of proof on the shoulders of interventionists, which is where it belongs.
“I really don’t understand these “libertarians” who oppose Hoppe. Please outline succinctly your legal theory.”
Olovetto,
What’s with the scare quotes around “libertarians”?
‘He was trying to get someone else to put their theory out as a means of holding AE as better than the rest, instead of defending the weaknesses of AE which have nothing to do with other theories, and that wasn’t going to fly.’
Well he has talked about AE before or at least others have displayed the rational of AE on these forums. You yourself asked why you have to defend your theory of justice, why should you hold him to the standard of having him defend his theory?
‘There are two positions here, can you not see them?’
Honestly no. I see ERO perhaps not going into enough detail to make his implications know but I don’t see anyone explaining differing theories of justice or their validity. So it’s just turned into a yelling match.
‘It is quite a ridiculous claim that substantively criticizing theory is form of denigration.’
Well you said you wouldn’t spend an hour or more writing out the evidence to contradict AE. I see no substance behind a statement such as that. Perhaps you are thinking of a different topic where this has been discussed?
‘Surely you are not claiming that one party in a discussion on the merits of libertarianism must be a statist else the discussion be fruitless?’
Certainly not. However for discussion to be fruitful, criticism alone cannot be seen as the better of an argument. Surely we can all criticize socialism but what does that mean if we cannot advocate for an idea beyond such criticism?
‘This isn’t a difference of competing philosophies. This is whether AE meets the test of being suitable for use as a theory of justice. Or is it law? We’ll have to wait for ERO to clarify which he is speaking about.’
How strange. I thought this was a topic concerning differing theories of justice in their relation to AE, not AE itself. Did the main topic suddenly change? Perhaps we should ask the OP to restate their argument and/or question? ERO, is this topic about the validity of competing theories of systems of justice or is it about the validity of argumentation ethics?
What’s with the scare quotes around “libertarians”?
Seriously, libertarian could mean a number of things.
It’s not his theory. It is Hoppe’s. And he started this thread with the expectation others should explain themselves, but he continues to avoid answering for his shallow critiques around the forum.
You claimed this was one-sided, but it isn’t. ERO has staked himself out as pro-Hoppean (without articulating what a Hoppean is) and characterized others as anti-Hoppean, demanding they explain themselves.
Obviously the argument did not start here. Again, substantive critique is not denigration, and it is ridiculous for you to make such a claim.
You thought wrong, an issue common with your responses to this thread thus far, which have served as little more than fluff, or running interference on a real debate occurring. ERO has already been asked to make an argument (he claims he never stated one).
It seems to me you are commenting out of ignorance of the context of the discussion which lead to the creation of this thread. I realize you are very close with ERO, maybe you should PM him your question.
I’ve never read a book by Hoppe. Judging by some of his fanboys, I probably will not.
that’s a great shame
I noticed about a year ago that the fans of a team, a country (patriots) , a political party, a movement, an idea, or men are always more fanatical about the subject than the subject itself. It’s a form of delusional obsession. It was so bad here at one time that I started to really dislike Rothbard after seeing how so many Rothbardians promoted him. That was unfair to him, and intellectually dishonest of me, but it was in response to being hammered by people who (to put it kindly) were fanatical about the man and what he had written/said.
I do not agree with Hoppe on AE, likewise I don’t agree with Kinsella on estoppel. But I am a big fan of Kinsella on IP, and I am a big fan of Hoppe on economic analysis of political history. Fans however, tend to see everything as a package deal. You either agree with Hoppe on everything, or you are anti-Hoppean, as though the limits of what it is to be Hoppean, is support for AE, ignoring the remaining body of his work.