I missed this post, figured I should respond before someone accuses me of ignoring you.
If someone aggresses (initiates violence) then they can’t really claim force shouldn’t be used against them.
I read that Q&A with Hoppe and I still have the same questions which I feel like are being misunderstood. It sounds like you and him are both stating that there are some distinctions between humans and animals such as language, argumentation, etc. I can accept this.
Utilizing reductio ad absurdum though, we can then come to the conclusion that some humans do not meet these requirements (cannot talk, cannot reason, cannot argue, etc.) and therefore would be considered the same as dogs as far as rights go. I don’t have a problem with this.
I suspect that some people who agree with Hoppe’s diferentiation between man and beast would not accept the logic to the extreme, meaning they would not consider some humans to be equivelant of dogs as far as rights are concerned. If you don’t accept the theory in all cases then you are just drawing a fuzzy line in the sand and you are not using logic/reason to come to factual differentiator.
The alternative would be to simply special case out humans for no other reason besides “we can”. From there you can apply all the same logic across the board to humans, regardless of whether or not other species can communicate, reason or argue and regardless of whether or not every human can communicate, reason or argue.
Neither Hoppe, nor I state all the differences between a human animal and a non-human animal (this is the proper biological distinction). I am negligent about a comprehensive comparison between all the characteristic properties a human animal possesses and all the characteristic properties a non-human animal possesses. That is because the construction of the concrete argument; and ethics as a whole, does not need to integrate such details. Whether or not a potential creator of conflict has or has not fur, has 4 legs or 2, has wings or doesn’t, is a mammal or not, is of no significance to the perceived goal of argumentation ethics. What is important is that potential creators of conflicts do exist, insignificant of their matter, shape and etc. Of course before naming what or who is a potential creator of conflict, a definition of a conflict must be provided. Hoppe recognized what a conflict is and why it occurs. A conflict is a dispute over a scarce resource. It is a disequilibrium of at least two agent’s satisfaction as a result of coercive action performed бъ at least one of them. There are several ways to deal with the possibility of conflicts to arise. One of them is to passivеly accept what other actor does. If he wants your meal, you do not speak with him, do not use physical force to prevent him from taking your meal. Another one is to not stay passive, but rather when he comes for your meal, you try to force him away. Third one is not only you protect yourself from attacks but you yourself initiate aggression. In every one of these scenarios a conflict is present. If we assume that we are talking about two actors that are humans, there is, though, a forth scenario. And that is argumentation. The two humans are capable of choosing different means to meet their ends. They can prefer not to fight, but instead talk and consequently come to some sort of a action-coordination system intended to make their future interaction also non-violent. I say also because the very act of arguing is not violent, too.
An argument between a human animal and non-human animal can not take place. This leaves out of the question a scenario in which these two parties could possibly not come into a fight over a scarce resource. In such a case the only way that one of the parties can make sure that he will not be harmed (with which way he assures himself a life freed from coercion from this particual other party,i.e. he will not be coerced by it) is the one in which he takes control over the other party. There is not any other conceivable way. (Again, this does not mean that each one of the parties ought to coerce the other. This is not an appeal for violence.)
Argumentation between two parties is needed to prevent coercion. This does not mean that because a baby can not argue, it ought to be coerced or that if it is coerced, then, no property rights are violated. A baby is also the ultimate desicion-maker of its body and also can not argue but it does not pose a threat of violence. This means that a justification for coercion against babies on the premise that they can not argue is invalid. This is not what argumentation ethics is about.
Hope you will have the time to read EEPP. 
Before we get into that, it might be useful for me to question what those words means anyway. What would it even mean for “thought to beget language” or the other way around? What are you referring to by the word “language”? And what about the word “thought”? I must be misinterpreting you. I can’t figure out why anybody would debate this topic. If I’m not misinterpreting you, they’re both trivially true. They influence each other. I might say something because I thought something, and I might think something because I said something. What’s the big deal?
But whatever. I’ll give an example anyway. Maybe it will help. Let’s say that I have a negative association with the phrase “on fire” because I burned my old house to the ground by using a candle. After that happened, I yelled to myself “NEVER LET ANYTHING IN MY HOUSE THAT’S ON FIRE”. But now all I remember are the words. So you tell me that your grill cooks by lighting something “on fire” (the words!), and I refuse to let you bring it into my house. I don’t go through all the images of what the fire could do to my house or anything; all that happens is that you say “on fire” about it, and I instantly feel a huge bolt of dissatisfaction while imagining it in my house. So I don’t allow you to bring it in.
- the association equation: (“on fire” → the grill) + (“on fire” → bad in my house) = (the grill → bad in my house)
So what’s the point? It’s this. In that example, all I did was hear you say that it cooks by lighting something “on fire”, and then I immediately transitioned to feeling an extreme aversion to the idea of it being in my house. All I really did was apply a certain symbol to it (“on fire”), and then start feeling a certain way about it (bad in my house!). I didn’t go through any sort of long reasoning process; I just reacted to the symbol. But however crazy that sounds, it’s pretty normal. That’s usually how we function. We’re usually on autopilot just reacting to established good and bad symbols. Those symbol associations drive our action. So if that’s thought (deciding not to let you bring the grill in my house), then language (namely the phrase “on fire”) begot it. Language begot thought. I guess.
And another example. This one will be a lot simpler. Let’s say that I want something to drink, and I imagine saying “I’m thirsty” followed by my friend getting me some water. I want B (the drink), and I believe that doing A (saying those words) would lead to having B, so of course I do A (say those words). If imagining that saying something (“I’m thirsty”) would get you what you want (the drink) is thought, and actually saying it is language, then it’s pretty safe to say the opposite in that situation. Thought begot language. I assume.
I should have clarified. By thought I meant “complex/abstract thought”. Thinking about events, creating associations, etc. are things that any animal can do. However, complex/abstract thought seem to be something unique to humans. The ability to participate in scientific and philisophical thoughts that are not directly related to experiences, feelings, etc.
The simplest way to describe it is with the question, “If humans didn’t have language, would they be able to think about abstract and complex things or would they be limited to thinking only about their personal history, experiences and desires?” That is, could humans without language participate in science, philosophy, etc.
When you participate in scientific or philisophical thought, do you use sensory information to put it all together in your head and contemplate or do you formulate it into words and then contemplate using that? It has been a while since I have read the research on the topic so I am a bit rusty as to the specifics of the research behind it but the debate is an active one and there is empirical evidence that suggests that without language humans would not be able to participate in complex abstract thought.
As for the language begets thought or thought begets language, it’s a question of which came first in human evolution. Did we start talking and that created an opportunity to have complex/abstract thoughts or did we start having complex/abstract thoughts and that lead to the development of language?
For thought beget language, the human brain evolve and needed ways to store complex and abstract information. This created a need for a language to satisfy that requirement so humans developed an internal language in their brain. This then lead to the desire to communicate those abstract/complex ideas to other humans which lead to the outward language (spoken or sign).
For language beget thought, humans evolved and found a need to communicate with each other so they developed language. This language then provided a platform for the brain to leverage and allowed it to start contemplating more complex ideas as the language became more complex.
I disagree with this assertion. I would say that a baby is capable of aggressive and violent action before it is capable of argumentation. A baby can bite, grab, hit, etc. at a very early age. A baby can also fire a gun before it is capable of argumentation, though in the case of a gun it’s unlikely the baby would use it aggressively unlike biting, grabbing, hitting, etc.
Also, this still doesn’t address the question of a mentally retarded person who may be physically stronger than me yet incapable of argumentation, similar to a lion who has a physical advantage but not the mental capacity to argue. Would these people classify, by your definition, as humans when it comes to the right to own/be owned or would these people classify as non-human animals when it comes to the right to own/be owned?
I am not disagreeing with any you or Hoppe’s other assertions. I am just curious if you are willing to take this line of thinking to the logical extreme and segregate the human race into owners and owned (though, the % of the population that would be property is minute). In this case, the owners would be the vast majority of people and the owned would be those incapable of argumentation due to retardation, brain degeneration, etc.
What’s it mean to not be directly related to experience, feelings, or whatever?
How could somebody think about anything past their personal history, experiences, and desires?
If I’m doing useful science or philosophy, then the former. But if I’m confusing myself, then the latter.
I would agree only in the sense that a natural language is a useful memory device.
I would hear you out on your opinion, but that’s not a question that I would be interested in pursuing on my own at this point.
To bring the conversation back to the original dispute.
What’s the question of which came first in the evolution of our species have to do with whether my thought process is in English or not?
The language/thought evolutional ordering is dependent on the assertion that humans “think” (complex/abstract) in language. If you don’t agree with that assertion then the question of which evolved first is not a reasonable question. Cognitive psychologists believe that humans do think in language, not sensory information. Beyond that though, I can’t provide much more information since I haven’t researched it for quite a while. All I remember is that back when I did the research I was convinced by it, but I wouldn’t be able to argue the point to you now.
As for the language/thought evolutional ordering, the same applies. It’s been too long since I did the research to argue the point on it’s behalf and while it is an interesting subject to me, I don’t care quite enough about it to go do all the research again. 
It appears I got off track quite a bit. The point I originally meant to get at is that humans think in language, which it sounds like you disagree with. From there I kind of went on a mental tangent to the evolution ordering thing and then ended up typing that up instead. Fail.
Since it is relevant to this conversation though, I will see if I can find some basic research that argues in favor of humans thinking in language and come back here with it.
As always, Wikipedia has a nice overview of the subject:
Whose hands a baby could bite, grab and hit? Could a baby travel the distance from its crate to the street or a neighbour’s home? The only individuals that are affected by this so-called aggressive baby behaviour are either his guardians or guardians’ friends, both of which have explicitly or implicitly agreed to bear such behaviour. The other thing is that whatever the baby/child does while under a guardianship - the guardians are responsible for it’s actions. Because by agreeing to be its guardians these people agree to make sure it does not hurt someone while it can not argue for itself. Nevertheless, you can ask many as such questions. I would again suggest you read the book.
I am starting to feel like you are avoiding my inquiry about mentally retarded people and those with degenerative brain diseases. The baby is an easy example but falls short because it eventually will develope into a human capable of argumentation. However, a mentally retarded human will not develope into such a thing so what makes him special compared to a non-human animal with a similar mental capacity?
It is my understanding that the book you have suggested does not address this particular topic and instead assumes that all humans are capable of argumentation at some point, which in my opinion is an inaccurate assumption. If I am wrong would you mind pointing me to a chapter/page that directly addresses this issue (since it is the only issue I have)? I am hesitant to read an entire book in search for the answer to one question that I don’t believe it has when the rest of the book doesn’t bring anything to the table that I don’t already know/agree with.
The book addresses this topic with the sole explanation of the conception of argumentation ethics. Look at my previous posts for pages from the book that may help you.
I understand what the book is about. It is my understanding though that the book assumes all humans are capable of argumentation. Am I incorrect in this understanding? Does the book actually address the fact that not all humans are capable of argumentation or is the entire book written on the assumption that the “all humans are capable of argumentation” premise is true?
The particular ‘humans’ you have in mind in your question… are they mere bags of meat with no thoughts in their heads and whose link to humanity is mere biological similarity us thinking humans, or did you have something else in mind?
What you described would fall into the category I was thinking of. However, there are steps above that which are still below the definition of capable of argumentation. Someone with severe autism can be said to be incapable of argumentation but I would not classify them as a bag of meat with only biological similarity to humans. The same could go for someone with a degenerative brain disease that has caused them to now lack the mental capacity to argue. They were definitely human and capable of argumentation at one point, perhaps even a prime specimen. However, now they are no longer capable of argumentation but they aren’t just bags of meat.
by argument is meant only the ability to consider propositions, make truth evaluations, deductions etc, it does not rely on physical attributes or the ability to perform physical behaviours like speaking or waving ones arms.
I think one of two things is going on here. You are either saying that you are concerned that some people who have ‘inner lives’ not be excluded from the moral agent pool… well, if they do have inner lives, if they ‘think’, then we haven’t yet found a reason to exclude them from the pool…on the other hand, if they do not have this, but the only reason you wont call them ‘bags of meat’ is that they either share appearance with moral agents, or used to be moral agents before being entirely zombified then I think you are being led by your emotions.
It seems to me that if a thing cannot effectively communicate with me then I can have no way of knowing whether or not it is capable of considering propositions, making truth evaluations, deductions, etc. internally. I can only assume that a non-communicative thing does not think critically because the alternative, assuming that things unable to communicate can critically think, results in me having to assume that dogs and spiders can also do these things.
Note: By “communicate” I do not necessarily mean spoken or signed language. This could also including running tests for cognitive thought on the thing.
I want to make clear that my only argument at this point is that the definition of which things have rights and which don’t is fuzzy and arbitrary rather than rationally defined.
From my understanding, Hoppe attempts to rationalize this definition by using capability of argumentation as the defining characteristic. However, this can only hold true if we accept that not all humans meet this criteria and therefore not all humans have rights. If you accept that not all humans have rights by this definition then the logic holds and you are not drawing a fuzzy line (though we can still debate on how to test for argumentation capability, loss of it, future prediction of it, etc.). If you state that all humans have rights, regardless of their meeting this requirement then the argument that “things who have rights is rationally defined” does not logically hold and you are instead drawing a fuzzy line around humanity.
… but… you are the one that said “think of all these people that have inner lives and thoughts but are unable to communicate (i.e. your severe autists)”
so you are trying to have it both ways a little…