Most do, but are you sure that they have to?
That’s the big question that cognitive psychologists are trying to answer. There are definitely indicators that this is the case but there are also indicators that language is a side effect of thought as well. If you are interested in the topic I can try to dig up some some relevant research articles on the subject.
I am sorry for my late response.
Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of your question. Are you asking me whether a thing that can not argue ought to coerce and/or ought to be itself coerced?
No argument can be thought of by a thing that can not reason; and even if it could reason, an argumentation between it and another thing would not exist if there is a cognitive barrier between them. Hoppe’s axiom addresses arguments for coercion which presupposes an agent that made it, because arguments are not merely a “meaningless noise” floating in the air. What is else, argumentation ethics does not propose “ought” statements.
Hoppe is a philosopher who has recognized the fundamental reason for the emergence of conflicts. And this reason is the lack of superabundance of goods. He attempts at coming with a solution that eliminates (or more precisely, minimize their absolute number) otherwise unavoidabe conflicts. These conflicts are otherwsie unavoidable when there are no norms to regulate interaction. The intended purpose of every moral norm is to coordinate action, so that these previously unescapable conflicts be prevented from arising. Originator of conflict can be every actor, no matter human or non-human. An act of eating my arm, executed by a lion, constitutes a conflict over a scarce good, i.e. over my body. It is, of cource, most preferable to come up with a solution that addresses conflict regardless who/what is the actor that produced it. I believe that you know all of this. Most philosophers know it, too. There are some differences, though. Hoppe recognizes that non-human potential creators of conflicts are not moral agents. They are not capable of reasoning; they do not act purposefully, rather instinctively. Which means that they do not have the capacity of choosing different means for achieving their end. The means they employ are ones antagonistic to property rights. When a lion wants to eat, it goes and kills a gazelle. What is of significance is that their means are natural and more importantly do not succumb to consideration and followed alteration. Ergo, no argumentation can take place with these potential creators of conflicts regarding proper and non-proper behaviour. And as Hoppe says, then, the problem becomes technological, i.e. if they are to be submitted to us thanks to our species’ supremacy, there isn’t a property rights violation.
What about a brain dead guy, or a guy with dementia? Well the brain dead guy can not act, so he can not possibly inflict someone’s property rights. The guy with dementia also can not argue, but he can act. If he does not have a guardian who makes sure that he does not go on a rampage, then if he is imprisoned or killed, that is not a violation of property rights.
Yet scarcity, and the possibility of conflicts, is not sufficient for the
emergence of ethical problems. Obviously, one could have conflicts
regarding scarce resources with an animal, yet one would not consider
it possible to resolve these conflicts by means of proposing
property norms. In such cases, the avoidance of conflicts is merely a
technical, not an ethical, problem. For it to become an ethical problem,
it is also necessary that the conflicting actors be capable, in principle,
of argumentation.
HHH, Economics and ethics of private property, p411
Here the praxeological
proof of libertarianism has the advantage of offering a completely
value-free justification of private property. It remains entirely
in the realm of is-statements and never tries to derive an “ought”
from an “is.”
HHH, Economics and ethics of private property, p345
Well if you then did not claim and don’t now that the concrete person whose argument Conza addressed does not relate to the validity of Conza’s own argument , why did you demand to be told who this person is? I speculate that you are one of the people who Conza referred to when he wrote this: “I find it hilarious that some here are all about actions & principles, non hypocrisy and yet their own very own refute their notion of it.” I traced this back in the first page of this thread.
Conza has made several postings in the first page of the thread. Most of them are addressed to your writings. I think that they substantiate a refutal of your 3rd posting in the thread. So, if we agree that he has refuted your writings, what is the significance of his laughing on his argument. None. Maybe you will perceive his personality in a different way, but his argument still holds.
You either did not understand that he addressed you in some of his postings or you deliberately prentended that he did not address you. Then you call him a coward for not explicitly mentioning your name. He, not directly naming you, does not demolish his arguments. Why do you bring in the “cowardness”? What is he supposed to be coward about? How does this relate to his argument? I will speculate again and say that it looks like this: “Hey, you even did not dare to speak my name, so I will just neglect your arguments, no matter whether they are sound or not.”
My opposition to the mentioned thread will be constructed on the premises and conclusions that are contained in the quotes given by Conza in the first page of the current thread I am writing in.
I feel inclined to say this: Capitalism does not encourage people to do anything. Capitalism is not a norm, a motivator, or something like this. Capitalism is a mode of production. Capitalism in itself as a conception does not include the way (i.e, with initiation of aggression or without the initiation of aggression) you ought to acquire the means you are using for your engagement in such a production. It neither recognizes property rights, or not recognizes them.
What I was trying to get at is how you define whether or not a thing is capable of argumentation? At first glance to me it seems like it must necessarily be arbitrary. A good example is a child. When they are born they are incapable of argumentation. When they are adults they are capable of argumentation. However, at what point between those two times do they switch from incapable to capable? How is such a thing measured? The same goes for the spectrum of intelligence found in humans. I would assume that we can state a severely mentally retarded individual is incapable of argumentation while a genius is very capable of argumentation. Where in this spectrum do you draw the line between capable and incapable? There are humans all along that spectrum and no clear way in my mind to divide the populous.
I like the idea of using argumentation to determine whether a thing has rights or not but I don’t like the fact that the dividing line has to be arbitrarily set.
There isn’t a line, a measure and whatever. Hoppe addresses arguments for coercion. Behind every argument stands a thing that made the argument. It does not matter whether a 40-year old professor made it or 5-year old that says to his brother “I ought to coerce you”. Let me repeat my question: Are you asking me whether a thing that can not argue ought to coerce and/or ought to be itself coerced?
It was my understanding that you were suggesting that if something can’t argue then it has no “rights”. So a rock has no rights because it cannot argue. A dog has no rights because it cannot argue. A newborn has no rights because it cannot argue. All of those things are property and subject to the whims of those who can argue. They can be owned, bought, sold, traded, coerced, etc.
Assuming this interpretation is correct, how does one determine whether a thing is capable of argumentation or not?
First, it must be noted that the question of what is just or unjust—
or for that matter the even more general question of what is a valid
proposition and what is not—only arises insofar as I am, and others
are, capable of propositional exchanges, i.e., of argumentation. The
question does not arise vis-à-vis a stone or fish because they are incapable
of engaging in such exchanges and of producing validity claiming
propositions. Yet if this is so—and one cannot deny that it is without
contradicting oneself, as one cannot argue the case that one cannot
argue—then any ethical proposal as well as any other proposition
must be assumed to claim that it is capable of being validated by
propositional or argumentative means. (Mises, too, insofar as he formulates
economic propositions, must be assumed to claim this.) In
fact, in producing any proposition, overtly or as an internal thought,
one demonstrates one’s preference for the willingness to rely on
argumentative means in convincing oneself or others of something.
HHH, Economics and ethics of private propety, p342
A baby is the ultimate decision-maker of its body, just as it is an adult of his. The fact that the baby has relatively less power to demonstrate this is not relevant. So, if someone makes an argument for coercion, explaining to the baby “You do not have property rights, that is why I will hurt you.” it is still an invalid one, no matter that the baby can not understand what this someone is talking about.
I know it is a bit confusing the way I present it. That is why I propose you to read Economics and ethics of private propety. It is structured in a nice manner and you can start from the beginning, explained from HHH himself.
How is a baby different from a dog or a tree? Why isn’t the dog the ultimate decision-maker of its body? Why isn’t the tree the ultimate decision maker of it’s body?
We are talking here about potential creators of conflicts. How would one year old baby that does not have a custodian go on a street rampage. First of all, it would not have survived this first year of it’s life without someone taking care of it. Second, is a baby physically capable of acting in a way that violates someone’s property rights? Third, while it is under a custodianship this someone is responsible for it’s actions. And while in this custodianship it improves it’s reasoning. Later when it is capable of taking care of itself and can reason, also can understand that murdering a man is an unsubstantiated claim over a scarce resource. A dog can not reason neither when is young, nor when is older. A dog can harm people when is young and when is old.
I suggest you read EEPP.
My question wasn’t one of whether a baby could do harm or not, it was whether a baby has rights or is property (owned by it’s mother). I gather that you are suggesting that it has rights since in the future, given the opportunity to develop, it will be capable of argumentation. A dog on the other hand is incapable of argumentation now and in the future therefore it has no rights. Is this correct?
How does this ruling apply to humans who are incapable of argumentation now and will not become capable of argumentation in the future? Examples such as the mentally retarded and people with degenerative brain diseases come to mind. They cannot argue now and they will not be able to argue in the future. Does this mean they are treated as property, much like a dog is property?
I can see how once you establish which collections of matter can own property and which collections of matter cannot own property you can then logically deduce all other property rights, trade, anti-coercion rules, etc.. My problem is that I don’t understand how you can identify which collections of matter can own property and which cannot. What makes a gorilla less worthy of property rights than a newborn child (the dolphin is arguably smarter)? Is it just a matter of special casing our own species? Is it a matter of whether or not the thing can argue now? Can argue in the future? What happens if dogs evolve to be capable of argumentation, do they gain property rights over themselves?
It is all about the timing. When the baby can not reason, i.e., it can not be argued with, it also can not act in a violent way, or if it acts in such way - it’s custodian is responsible for it’s actions. So, it is of no significance that the baby can not argue for itself. A dog can not be argued with through the extent of it’s whole life and there are unowned dogs that can and do initiate aggression. No conceivable ethical norm could exist in order to avoid this possible conflict. Then the problem is merely technological, i.e. if it is unowned and you do not want to live your life in a constant fear of it attacking you, you can submit it to your control. I do not say you ought to submit it, I am saying that if you do, you are not a violater of property rights. Property rights as a concept can be perceived only by creatures that can reason.
Liberty Student:
“Then why did you say anything at all?”
Because I lose respect for those unwilling to address something that, imo, refutes their position and yet they choose to pretend it doesn’t exist… and carry on in that fashion. I was indirectly calling those people out.
“Cool red herring bro.”
Wow, so cheap, wrong & petty. You’re the one whose gone on this red herring path, not me. I’m the one who has actually been trying to avoiding.
“My question was simple and direct. Who specifically were you calling out? If you can’t name names, then spare us your condemnation. Internet cowards are a dime a dozen.”
Fine. Since you insist. Liberty Student. It was you specifically who I had in mind when I made my statement. But it goes for whoever else fits the bill.
Micah71381:
“It’s possible that this is because I am reading this section out of context in which case would you mind including his premises?”
Yeah or you could go read the source document, freely available in pdf form with the specific pages mentioned.
“Conza chose to make an appeal to riddicule against some set of people on this forum. Liberty student wanted to know who they were. Conza indicated that he didn’t want to derail the conversation. Liberty student pointed out that Conza initiated the derailing by appealing to riddicule in the first place, which started the whole chain.”
Haha! What a re-write of history. How about ya’ll scroll up in this thread, because I don’t know which one you were reading - it certainly wasn’t this one. As you forgot the part where I directly responded to the arguments put forward by others (specific individuals) many times. And they were ignored every time and treated as they didn’t exist. No doubt I am not owed a response. But when my arguments [the arguments I agree with] are being ignored, be it out of intellectual cowardice or whatever [and when all others are being addressed & they carry on as if their position has not been put into question], I’m going to lose respect for those individuals. And so what else is there to do but laugh at them? See below in bold.
vaduka:
“I do not see the red herring… But I see that you are the one participant in the debate who questions the feelings and emotions of another participant as a way may be to proof him wrong?”
If a theorist has already made a sufficient refutal of someone’s argument how does it matter if he even starts making flying somersault?
! That’s why they must make it personal, as they are doing now. Red herring & ad hominem all the way!
I speculate that you are one of the people who Conza referred to when he wrote this: “I find it hilarious that some here are all about actions & principles, non hypocrisy and yet their own very own refute their notion of it.” I traced this back in the first page of this thread.
. Spot on.
Conza has made several postings in the first page of the thread. Most of them are addressed to your writings. I think that they substantiate a refutal of your 3rd posting in the thread. So, if we agree that he has refuted your writings, what is the significance of his laughing on his argument. None. Maybe you will perceive his personality in a different way, but his argument still holds.
. I don’t think he’d agree that his writings have been refuted. And yet I value the truth & I am open to reason. I also value LS’s take on things, which makes it all the more frustrating when the norm seems to be acting as if my arguments / postings don’t exist, especially since they differ on his. I know/assume he doesn’t agree - what is frustrating is having no idea why.
You either did not understand that he addressed you in some of his postings or you deliberately prentended that he did not address you. Then you call him a coward for not explicitly mentioning your name. He, not directly naming you, does not demolish his arguments. Why do you bring in the “cowardness”? What is he supposed to be coward about? How does this relate to his argument? I will speculate again and say that it looks like this: “Hey, you even did not dare to speak my name, so I will just neglect your arguments, no matter whether they are sound or not.”
. Certainly looks that way. And then I am the one he chides in another thread “that I can do so much better” [what makes it even more hilarious is the fact that the fellow mod I was responding to, had previously made false accusations against me. At the time I asked for an apology , none was forth coming. True colours. In the new instance I was merely taking the mickey, both out of him & the thread that was also indirectly about false accusations! Granted I guess I could have done better… not lower myself to the same level.
Anyway, I’m surprised someone hasn’t piped up and suggested this be taken to the members issues forum - I guess it’s only a matter of time lol!
Would you agree or disagree with these statements?
A dog is and always will be incapable of argumentation/reason therefore it is property and cannot own property.
A human that is and always will be incapable of argumentation/reason is property and cannot own property.
If you don’t agree with them, how would you reword them to be more in line with your views?
Please read EEPP - all of it.
But the following several pages, I think, will answer your questions: 280, 284, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318.
In this Introduction of his newest paper he talks about a perversion of a norm (that is when a supposed conflict-minimazing norm instead creates conflicts):
I will begin with some abstract but fundamental theoretical
considerations concerning the sources of conflicts and the purpose of social
norms. If there were no interpersonal conflicts, there would be no need for
norms. It is the purpose of norms to help avoid otherwise unavoidable
conflicts. A norm that generates conflict, rather than helps avoid it, is
contrary to the purpose of norms, i.e., it is a dysfunctional norm or a
perversion.
OF PRIVATE, COMMON, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY AND
THE RATIONALE FOR TOTAL PRIVATIZATION
HANS-HERMANN HOPPE
“A dog is and always will be incapable of argumentation/reason therefore it is property and cannot own property.”
For an elaboration on the difference between man and animal; see a small excerpt from Hoppe here.
“The first lecture, I want to talk about the nature of man. Comparing men with animals and illuminating the major differences, and characterizing what one can call the human condition, the condition that mankind finds itself confronted with.”
“So with this, let me begin talk about the nature of man and the human condition. And speak in particular about three elements that are unique, so to speak, to mankind. One is language, the second one is property, and the third one is production or technology.”
Cont…
A human that is currently incapable of argumentation/reason [eg. coma] falls into a third possible status. Guardianship rights go to those with the best claim. Should someone wish to end their guardianship “the concept of guarding” [ because of eg. costs associated with such a status] they lose the rights. If you want this elaborated on - I can endeavour to find some sources.
"It is worth mentioning that the ownership right stemming from production finds its natural limitation only when, as in the case of children, the thing produced is itself another actor-producer. According to the natural theory of property, a child, once born, is just as much the owner of his own body as anyone else. Hence, not only can a child expect not to be physically aggressed against but as the owner of his body a child has the right, in particular, to abandon his parents once he is physically able to run away from them and say “no” to their possible attempts to recapture him. Parents only have special rights regarding their child - stemming from their unique status as the child’s producers - insofar as they (and no one else) can rightfully claim to be the child’s trustee as long as the child is physically unable to run away and say “no.”[8] ~ Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, n.9 to ch. 2, on p. 212; emphasis added.
Well, that wasn’t so hard, was it? I mean, considering how I regard you as a friend, I’m surprised that you would take a passive/aggressive swipe at me online. Or maybe I shouldn’t be?
Remember who started it Conza.
I had no idea you were talking to me.