So, you believe it without any proof and without even knowing what it is that you believe. Nice.
No, I said critics of his theory aren’t familiar with his actual writings on it, which you proceeded to demonstrate. You don’t need to have that kind of tone just because you’re a mod either.
Those are decent, but I remember someone else mentioning how there isn’t really one single place where Hoppe has outlined the theory, so I figured it would be useful to include these lectures here, where he does extrapolate the whole thing:
Mises University:
“Property and the Social Order” (2011)
Then there’s these resources as well.
Also, other threads:
I provide a summary and guide to other reading here “Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide”.
It was discussed extensively previosly in this forum. I think you can see there the myriad of attempt to escape the simple and obvious truth of Hoppe’s insights, ranging from evasion to equivocation. It is quite amazing. The most amazing part is how rejecting Hoppe’s AE basically means rejecting universalizability, which means rejecting reason. But, to each his own.
Nice to see you here, Stephan.
Here’s what I don’t follow…
It sounds like he saying that you own yourself, a scarce resource, because no one has a better claim on your body than you…but more specifically, because the alternatives don’t lend themselves to ethics or functionality. The first alternative to “everyone owns himself” is that some own others, while others don’t own them. Slavery. This is invalidated by Hoppe by the notion that it violates universality…it is a rule that is only applied to some, and not equally to others. Unethical.
Here I’m not so convinced, as he offers no concrete reason universality is necessary. He just appeals to “ethics” and “fairness”. But here it looks as though you are saying universality is to be accepted on “reason.” Could you elaborate on this part?
And then, when he doesn’t hold the same rule for animals, his reasoning is that the animals can’t argue with you. So basically, you are the super man so long as the opponant cannot argue. I’m not sure where humans who are mentally or even just physically incapacitated fit into this (such as Stephan Hawking for example…who, without the technology which others have given him, wouldn’t be able to argue. Does that mean he is not subject to the rule of self ownership and rights that cannot be violated? Or is there a “well, he could argue if it weren’t for x” argument made? That sounds quite flimsy to me. And how about the torture of animals?). I found Rothbard’s reasoning to be more convincing, but even he makes no mention of animal torture. It would seem that if animals have no rights, then there is virtually no justification for using force to prevent such an act. I’ve seen it argued that the way to deal with such sadists is simply disassociation. Is this really all there is? Is there no libertarian case for preventing torture of non-human (or non-arguing) creatures?
I do agree the only other alternative to “everyone owns himself” is much more easily debunked…the notion of universal communism…that everyone owns an equal share of everyone else. This would quite obviously bring life to a literal standstill, as no one would be able to rightfully gain permission to do anything, as Hoppe points out.
However, even conceding the universality requirment and acknowledging that people own themselves, I still don’t see a clear reasoning for how this proves the logical conclusion that property rights are valid. It all begins with the concept of scarcity and the need to avoid conflict. Hoppe begins by explaining, that because even in the garden of eden our physical bodies and the physical space they inhabit is scarce, conflict can arise. So the only way to resolve/avoid such conflict is by establishing the right of property, meaning I control what I own and you control what you own, and we cannot do anything to something someone else owns without their permission. But does it need to go any deeper than that? Is the avoidance/resolution of conflict enough of a justification in itself? Who is to say conflict is not justified or righteous or the natural state of things…or does not equate “order”? Is that question just a reduction to a chaotic state and therefore invalidated? Are we just supposed to take for granted that conflict is a negative thing to be avoided? I’m not really sure.
Modus Tollens was specific enough to include this qualifier throughout this thread, as seen here: “If one desires to resolve conflicts peaceably by way of rational argument, then one must recognise some kind of basic self-ownership…” [emphasis added]. My question is, is there any base reasoning that says avoiding or resolving conflicts peacefully is the “right” way things should be done?
An ethical framework need not be moralistic in nature. There are motorcycle ethics, automotbile ethics, business ethics, and a myriad of ethical frameworks which are not concerned with the righteousness or evilness of things. They are only designed as a code of conduct or list of guidelines to help facilitate the realization of an end.
In the same way Argumentation Ethics simply provides a code of conduct to facilitate the realization in discovering Truths. Thats all. Now Hoppe applies libertarian principles based on that logical framework to arrive at several various conclusions. For example an individual acting as a proponent of socialism is a self servicing contradiction. Why does he think his opinion matters? Why does he think he even has a right to an opinion? Why does he feel compelled to verbalize his opinion if not that he thought his opinion was valid? There are a number of questions we can ask here and Hoppe explores all of that.
While you may dispute some of the principles Hoppe uses to come to arrive at these conclusions you need not denounce argumentation ethics as a whole. AE is simply a facilitater in verbal discourse. Nothing more. If anything it’s just a complimentary layer on top of logic.
If we are in verbal discourse and I am attempting to defend a proposition we have to ask ourselves. Do you share a mutual interest with me in the searchf or and desire to discover a general truth? If your rebuttel has to do with the weight of my mother how can it be that it is in your interest to discover at some general truth regarding my proposition? AE can help us there.
This is my introduction to Hoppe, in light of common criticisms.