Anyone here read much into it? I would kinda like to believe it, i’d love for libertarianism to be an axiom, but it seems such a weak argument for such a strong claim. Others have pointed out various ambiguities but I think even if this was solved, ie it turned out there was no difference between ownership and use, I would still have the following problem with it:
Since argumentation ethics doesn’t, and couldn’t, say anything substantial about meta-ethics it is meaningless until it’s combined with a theory that does at which point it’s basically redundant anyway. There is no sense in saying the negation of ethical claim X is a performative contradiction without even describing what ethical claim X means. I wrote about it in more detail for a recent blog post of mine.
I’m new to the subject of argumentation ethics and most things pertaining to meta-ethics, so please forgive my ignorance. How is Libertarianism a strong claim with a weak argument?
If the answers are in your blog, I’ll check it out later - I’m in the middle of a job application.
I would suggest reading up Hoppe’s essays about the topic before formulating an opinion. And I strongly recommend against taking second hand interpretations of it here on this forum. The opinions of it here vary greatly to those in favor, and those strongly against. I for one am in favor of it, but feel that most folks are largely disjointed on the topic, even some who think they are in favor of it.
So instead of trying to act a proponent my recommendation to you is to go read Hoppe’s essays. This thread will likely just turn into one big massive argument.
And as a slight correction, argumentation ethics does not say that libertarianism is axiomatic specifically, more specifically it says that when you engage into discussion your making several objective assumptions upfront. Now it’s commonly argued that out of those assumptions comes certain concessions in libertarian principles.
For example, by opening your mouth to speak with someone your assuming that the person is an individual, self sovereign, and capable of responding with reason. This is assuming the point of the discussion is to find a truth, not to pander to insulting and fighting.
Argumentation ethics does not apply to discussion with rocks, non-reasonable objects(like a rock), and non-reasonable people who seek to nothing more then an aggressive fight. A person may yell and scream at their computer for not functioning correctly, but argumentation ethics does not apply to such situations. It only applies when both parties are genuinely attempting to seek a truth. In such a case all the rules of logic can be applied. Obviously yelling at your computer, refrigerator, or rock, is unreasonable and illogical. The same applies to arguing with a belligerent fool.
I didn’t mean libertarianism itself I meant this particular argument in favour of it. To say that it’s a self-evident axiom the way Hoppe does would require quite a lot of justification. More than I’ve seen so far (though this could just be because I haven’t seen enough yet).
Argumentation Ethics is most usefully applicable to discussion. It will really help you keep your arguments honest, and more easily able to point out the circularity of your opponent.
I have read some of his essays on it, admittedly not all of them, I’m not sure why you assumed I haven’t. I’ve also read some other people’s arguments for and against it. I just haven’t seen anyone explicitly address this concern of mine. Also he does essentially say it’s an axiom because he says it’s negation could never be argued in favour of and all propositions have to be justified in argument. The result is it’s supposedly self-evident.
However, can you recommend any particular essays on it?
This has been debunked so many times by some many critics, from the Liberty symposium to Murphy-Callahan to Brainpolice to Danny Shahar, only a fool would waste time on it.
Yes that is the point. There are several self-evident presuppositions that materialize the second you open yourself to discussion. meta-ethics need not apply. Here are a few to list from wiki.
The presupposition that participants in communicative exchange are using the same linguistic expressions in the same way
The presupposition that no relevant argument is suppressed or excluded by the participants
The presupposition that no force except that of the better argument is exerted
The presupposition that all the participants are motivated only by a concern for the better argument
Yes it would be incorrect for me to assume anything at this point.
Have you read Hoppe’s Economics and Ethics of Private Property?
The meta-ethics argument is a red-herring and not applicable. Don’t let the word “ethics” take you too far down the wrong rabbit whole. Perhaps it should be called Argumentation Guidelines, and associated implications.
It’s not implying libertarianism. Hoppe’s AE simply exemplifies various libertarian principles, like private property. Hoppe’s AE was built apon previous theories of discourse ethics. The whole of it is not his own.
It doesn’t need to, as thats irrelevant to the goals of AE and discourse ethics. This is the red-herring I mentioned above.
One does not philosophize over proper way to ride a bike, so why the added baggage when providing a mutually beneficial way to debate?
I didn’t mean libertarianism itself I meant this particular argument in favour of it. To say that it’s a self-evident axiom the way Hoppe does would require quite a lot of justification. More than I’ve seen so far (though this could just be because I haven’t seen enough yet)
Presumably if something is self-evident, it’s precisely because it doesn’t require justification.
Perhaps the reason you don’t understand discourse ethics is because you hold an arrogant “I’m right, your wrong” attitude. For the life of me, I’ve never seen you concede a point to anyone, anywhere. I’m curious as to what percentage of your posts do nothing beyond calling people foolish. It wouldn’t surprise me if you thought of yourself as nearly infallible. Which tells me your not here for discourse, and perhaps thats why you just don’t get it.
Yes, and this is all true, but the difference between these and self-ownership is these are all simply descriptive statements about what it means to be engaged in debate. The problem with including self-ownership among them is ownership is normative concept so even if it is a precondition of argumentation you still have to engage in meta-ethics to explain what it means.
Parts of it
Because Hoppe is proposing a norm that’s supposed to apply generally rather than just describing what debating means and even if he was doing the latter he would still have to engage in meta-ethics to explain the term “ownership” if it’s to perform the task he wants it to.
I think I see your point. Maybe this quote from David Gordon will help.
"Hoppe does not contend that the statement “People have libertarian rights” is a truth of logic: its negation is not self-contradictory. Rather, if one denies the statement, one contradicts oneself. It is asserting the statement’s negation that Hoppe claims is contradictory. Similarly, the statement “Reagan is dead” is not logically self-contradictory, but if spoken by Reagan its assertion involves paradox, since his saying it implies that he is not dead.
Paradoxes of this sort, often termed “performative contradictions,” are a lot of fun and have considerable philosophical importance. (A recent discussion is Roy Sorensen, Blindspots, Oxford University Press, 1988.) But although the contradiction just mentioned really is part of Hoppe’s argument, it is not the whole of it. The vital core of Hoppe’s case is that to claim that a statement is true is to claim that the statement can be supported by argumentation: and argumentation by its nature implies libertarian rights. The performative contradiction is just one step in Hoppe’s progress.
Thus, it is not right to say that Hoppe’s sole conclusion is that those who deny libertarian rights ought rationally to “shut up.” However desirable this state of affairs would be, it alone would not suffice to show that anyone has libertarian rights. It is the whole argument, if successful, that demonstrates this, not the contradiction considered in itself."
If this dosen’t help than I guess I missunderstand your point.
The problem is that a performative contradiction neither proves or disproves any proposition in question, no more than it does with respect to so-called form/content contradictions. At best, it means personal hypocrisy but does not function to justify any position in question. Additionally, it’s not at all clear that the things in question (such as a denial of “self-ownership” and neo-lockean property rights) really qualify as performative contradictions to begin with, or that such specific notions are quite the same thing as the baseline norms of “rational discourse”, or that discourse can sufficiently function as a model for warranted action. It does not seem to be the case that the fact that one engages in argumentation necessarily means that they are principly commited to certain norms or that any statements they make that contradict such norms are automatically false.
If libertarianism was “self-evident”, there wouldn’t be much debate about it in the first place. There’s nothing in argumentation ethics to justify the leap from what is allegedly presupposed or required by the norms of “rational discourse” to the validity of those norms, or interpreting one’s political ideology into discourse itself. Basically, a very primitive is/ought fallacy arises. Argumentation ethics appears to try to automatically falsify all alternatives to a certain set of oughts by switching to a descriptive context when they are challenged, and acting as if one’s own conceptual and value scheme is an apriori foundation. In effect, this does function to dubiously try to render one’s views undebatable. The whole project hinges on rationalist foundationalism.
For example, if one were to say “people ought not own themselves”, it does not follow from the act itself that people ought to own themselves. The statement does not auto-falsify. Perhaps someone would contend that one has to own oneself in order to engage in the act, but it is debatable that “ownership” is necessary for concious action to take place and, even if we momentarily speak in the language of “self-ownership”, that one ought to own oneself would still not follow from the fact that one already owns oneself. In order for the argument to be make the denials of “self-ownership” are “performative contradictions”, one has to switch to a metaphysical definition of self-ownership as something like “the fact that one can conciously act”, at which point the discourse has nothing in particular to do with libertarianism and becomes a matter of semantics, philosophy of mind, and neuroscience.
Yes this than depends on your definition of ownerhsip and property. I don’t see “Property” as being a type of "right, but property in and of itself is just a descriptive term.
Ethics and rights are applied on top of property. That is why there is “property”, and then “property rights”, the two being different things. So I don’t see where meta-ethics come into play. It’s just an adjective, a descriptive term, “property”.
Can you expand on the apparent contradiction in more laymens terms for me?
argumentation ethics is redundant, circular, and incoherent…but that is why it is such a good tool! it’s a way to trick people into becoming libertarians through sophistry, but it’s sophistry for a good cause so don’t knock it. the only problem is sometimes people will see the errors later, and then they might reject everything they learned and become pro-government, but that happens rarely enough that on net it could be beneficial. at least that is the idea.
All that argumentation ethics states is that anything but a private property ethic is impossible to argue. It doesn’t say anything about any system being possible or not.