ERO, my cost/benefit equation on this is deteriorating rapidly
Well, it was flawed from the start.
so I’m about done with you, as well. Glad we finally agree.
That’s a shame that you have been unable to articulate anything besides naive legal positivism and refuse to answer questions about your theory. Hit the showers.
E.R., I’m going to assume by “anti-Hoppean” you mean someone who does not agree entirely with Hoppe with regard to “the ultimate justification for libertarian ethics” being his argumentation ethics theory. It would be useful if you could confirm this, and that you are not referring to his theories on democracy, immigration, etc.
I’m not necessarily saying I am in this category; I am still undecided on whether I think AE is valid, or whether it fully acheives what Hoppe claims it does. But this is an attempt to succinctly outline a libertarian “legal theory” not based on Hoppe, as per your OP.
What is “ethical” and what is “unethical” cannot be established through argumentation. There simply is no objective ethics; no correct and no incorrect answers. It is purely subjective; each individual must decide for himself what actions he considers ethical and unethical. Libertarian ethics does not have to be argumentatively justified, because it is merely a matter a personal taste. I might be a libertarian simply because I find theft disgusting, and that is enough.
Now, assuming Hoppe’s theory is valid (and Kinsella makes a very powerful case for it, IMO), it’s merit is as follows. If a socialist is arguing with a libertarian by saying “socialism is an objectively superior ethic”, then Hoppe’s argument proves he is flat out incorrect, because for it to be objectively superior, it cannot contain the performative contradiction that it does; it cannot be argumentatively justified, and this is the only way objective truths can be ascertained, so it is incorrect.
But if the socialist is merely saying that “socialism is a superior ethic” (for some subjective reason, like he believes that socialism creates prosperity and subjectively values prosperity over poverty) then Hoppe’s argument cannot be used. It would be like if the socialist told you “I prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry”, and you reply that you have ironclad proof, some kind of mathematical formula or something, that proves strawberry ice cream is objectively superior to chocolate. Clearly, the socialist would laugh at this and say “Duh! There is no such thing as objectively superior when it comes to preferences for ice cream! I just like what I like! Subjective Theory of Value!”. Similarly, “There is no such thing as objectively superior when it comes to preferences for ethics; I just like the socialist one the best. Subjective theory of ethics”.
So, essentially the “legal theory” (assuming by that you mean “justification for libertarian laws”) is that libertarian laws are a good preference to adopt, for a variety of reasons (e.g. prosperity, peace, fairness, universality, etc, or justified by considerations about history or evolutionary psychology, etc).
But if the socialist is merely saying that “socialism is a superior ethic” (for some subjective reason, like he believes that socialism creates prosperity and subjectively values prosperity over poverty) then Hoppe’s argument cannot be used.
if he says it for that particular reason you offered as example, then you can explain the flaw in his reasoning (which is the Misesian approach). so its not like you are completely at see with no paddle, but it would be true that you have left an ethical argument and entered into an economic argument.
Exactly.
yet hoppe’s argument is effective,anyway… given that the socialist wants to argue, to state propositions, and he must presuppose norms in order to do so. The argument ‘i get kicks out of socialism, therefore socialism should be the social system that is adopted’ is not beyond debate, it is not merely ‘i get kicks out of socialism’
in the most reductive way I can think of boiling it down. the socialist can’t argue with you if he has presupposed you to be so much flesh that he is at sole liberty to dispose of.
Sorry, I can’t make any sense of that. Could you rephrase?
I make two points
A socialist that says ‘i get great pleasure from living in socialism, therefore socialism should be the social system that is adopted’ is not beyond debate, it is not merely that he ‘gets pleasure from living in socialism’ . You are right to say that the latter is unaddressable if it is atomic, but the former is an argument and so is up for debate.
to argue necessitates that you make presuppositions, if you contradict these your argument is undermined. this is performative contradiction. It is a performative contradiction to say ’ you have no rights mr libertarian’ when you had to presuppose that the libertarian has rights in order to even argue with him.
Well if someone holds socialist ethical values, that means they think it should be adopted as the social system.
Let me be more precise. Since we are talking about ethics, we can define a socialist as someone who says “theft is unethical in all cases, except when carried out by a democratically-elected government and performed for the purpose of taking from the rich to give to the poor”. This is what I mean by someone saying “socialism is a superior ethic”. Now, the question is, is that an argument (a proposition), or a statement of opinion, similar to “chocolate is a superior ice cream flavor”?
If we presume that it is an argument, in other words, it is a proposition put forward to try to ascertain and reach agreement on certain objective truths, then yes, Hoppe’s AE applies, and the socialist would be making a performative contradiction, so the socialist would be incorrect; the proposition “socialism is a superior ethic” is not true.
But what if “socialism is a superior ethics” is not a question of truth/falsity or correctness/incorrectness. But, like “chocolate is a superior ice cream flavor”, it only makes sense in relation to a particular individual’s personal subjective preferences. Then there is no real sense in which one ethic is objectively superior to another.
So it seems to me that what AE shows, at best, is “if there is such a thing as objective ethics, then the libertarian ethic is the only correct and true theory of ethics.”
That was probably one of the most refreshing posts I have seen in some time. I really have gotten tired of all the “Prophets’ Word Is Law” around here lately. Mises, Rothbard, Bastiat, Menger, etc. were all just humans like anyone else. Mises and such, to be sure, are given more benefit of the doubt from me simply by being reliable sources in the past, but there is always a marginal revolution for error. 
i recommend you ask the socialist whether his advocation of socialism is as vacuous as his advocation for his favourite ice cream flavour, and find out
A strongly held preference is still just a preference.
its not about finding out whether its strong, rather its finding out whether he is saying more than that he simply like it, and does not for example try to find reasons that others should like it. If you ever met any socialist then you will see that its not mere preference like that for one ice cream over another in the narrow case of wanting ice cream and having a choice of flavour
So it seems to me that what AE shows, at best, is “if there is such a thing as objective ethics, then the libertarian ethic is the only correct and true theory of ethics.”
It’s not meant to do more than disarm competing theories. You can bolster arg. ethics of course with further negative proofs/considerations in favour of libertarianism. Its own role is to disqualify positive theories for interventionism.
Thank you. If we ever meet up, drinks are on me.
Regardless of what the socialist thinks, Lilburne is right. A preference is still just a preference. He might not see them as equal in intensity or necessity, but they are both still preferences.
I dont deny it. I was just trying to point out that ‘empirically speaking’ and using dubious induction socialists that you will meet will go further than flatly state preferences… they will go on to advocate, they will not simply refer to their atomic ‘like’ of socialism, but rather they will offer more fundamental preferences (like peace & prosperity for example) which informs their preference for socialism. This gives scope for analysis, argument and yes, the possibility of the preferer changing those preferences which exist because of their relation to the more fundamental preferences (like peace & prosperity)
Im confident that even if we don’t agree on ‘meta-ethical’ issues, both you and Lilburne could agree with what I have just said.
And this is why I have enormous respect for you.
To hell with them!
I can’t speak for Lilburne, but I will give you an enthusiastic maybe.
I think we can all agree that Menger, Mises, and Rothbard are just humans like the rest of us, but…Bastiat!? Surely, Bastiat is no mere human!
On a more serious note, I will be ordering a copy of Democracy the God that Failed and I’ll give it a chance (although I don’t have very high hopes based on Hoppe’s knowledge of the history of philosophy of science).
Strategy for converting socialists to libertarianism is a different issue. Yes, certainly most socialists take that view because they mistakenly think that socialism creates peace, prosperity, fairness, etc. Then the debate becomes economic.
AE is meant to be a grand philosophical proof that all non-libertarian ethics are incorrect. So its aimed at socialists who literally think its objectively unethical NOT to have a government redistributing wealth. Most socialists don’t think this; they hold the socialist ethic as a preference, because they feel it would lead to better consequences. I’ve written about strategy for converting socialists to libertarianism in other threads. That is not what this thread is about.
E.R., this is your thread, what do you think about what I have written?
I wrote a few sentences earlier, but wasted more time today on the typical repeat topic, anarchy is utopian thread sorry. I am going swimming now, but will get back to you later tonight. =)
How do you handle the case of 10 oz. of gold being stolen? Proportionality really isn’t Hoppean. In fact, I don’t remember him writing about it at all.