I’ve seen some of his arguments, “Argumentation Ethics” and while I understand his point, my problem is I don’t find it to be binding or predictive about the various mechanisms we see in reality that solve the conflict problem.
I’m going to continue to look and think. We’ll see where I get with it.
He doesn’t intend it to do either of those things. Look at arg. ethics as a high level theory against socialist/non-libertarian theories of property (it is sort of a filtering device) and as an abstract theory of appropriation. Hoppe’s positive element of the theory is predicated on the notion that individuals desire peace and cooperation and therefore to reduce conflict. Hence I noted the similarity.
I like the idea that individuals desire peace and cooperation, but I would probably argue that language appeared first as a generic tool for sharing information, and that it’s existence in humans allowed abstract negotiation (a positive description of argumentation).
For example, he seems to state that because you argue you implicitly acknowledge ownership of self and the self-ownership of other. I don’t think that follows directly. My reasoning is that we treat dogs and human beings the same as means to be used to our own ends. We aren’t acknowleding their right to self-ownership, we’re acknowledging the presence of agency, not that there are rights inherent in the fact of agency. It’s not that we CAN’T force them, it’s that it’s easier (more profitable in some scenarios) to convince them (Argumentation).
The dog is the same way, but it’s agency is different in that I have to use different actions in order to “fool” it into doing the thing I want it to do. And a rock is the same way, except that it’s agency category is “inert”. (that was kind of a joke). With a rock I only have to deal with natural laws. With a dog, there is an agency which controls its behavior, through experience I learn about what how that agency works, and I learn how to kick off causal chains that get the dog (with varying levels of success) to serve as a means to some end of mine. - Note I did not mean I kick the dog…
With human beings the nature of the agency is even more complex, BUT I can identify it as similar to mine in many respects, and yet different from mine in others. But I haven’t ACCEPTED his self-ownership. I’ve accepted that it’s easier to get him to want to do what I want him to do by engaging in certain types of action… Coercive (threats), communicative argumentation, and violent action are all different ways I can interact with other people. Where the end I seek varies, the means by which I might achieve it will also vary and could include any one of these options. It just happens that we tend to choose argumentation or negotiation, because it’s more profitable.
I would argue not that individuals desire peace and cooperation and therefore to reduce conflict. I believe this begs a question for a condition that was the necessary outcome of selection.
Meaning that warlike, non-cooperative, and conflict loving individuals (and/or societies with norms or ideologies that infected their members with such memes) would tend to get themselves removed from the playing field.
I don’t think that the general emergence of a specific end as a generally preferred and highly valued end (like long life) makes it RIGHT. It cannot be used to move a specific theory of legitimate property claims from the normative realm into the descriptive realm, i.e. turns it from an Ought back into an IS.
If Praxeology deals with Ultimate Ends as givens, not subject to evaluation or judgment, then it a praxeology of politics must take them as givens also. Peace is an End, it may be for me and for you a GOOD end. We can analyze the consequences of specific systems of politics without judging the conditions that must arise due to them.
If this the of analysis is performed, I don’t have to judge the outcome. That’s left as an exercise for the consumer of that analysis. The defeat of socialist and interventionist ideas isn’t because it’s “Bad”; It’s because an honest appraisal of the outcome results in a society few men will prefer, if they understand the truth about what it necessitates.
The ascendence of a libertarian political system will not happen because of some “absolute goodness” but because an logical and true analysis of the consequences for society will be results that most men will prefer.
My point in distinguishing these two realms the normative and descriptive is that libertarianism gets attacked very effectively by it’s desire to blur and conjoin these two realms instead of accepting the dualism of mind/reality and the rise of the normative from action (subjective value).
Herein lies the crux of choice, and we are the only ideology that embraces it. A MAN MUST CHOOSE HIS OWN ENDS. Our job is simply to make clear that when he picks up one end of the stick (intervention) he picks up the other end (oppression). Necessarily! There is no escape.
Then, the question each man must ask is, do I want what’s on the other side? Luckily, intervention and oppression grow to create sufficient frustration, anger, etc. in the individuals. Eventually they will seek to throw off these conditions.
I think you are envisaging his argument as a tool for convincing. He doesn’t intend it this way, rather he explicitly defines argumentation in a narrow way so as to capture the sense in which it’s a filter for true theories. He is trying to show that any theory put forth in a way that denies the preconditions necessary for argumentation annihilates itself since it denies the very means by which it would be proposed to begin with; it’s thus a heavily Kantian flavoured argument. But he puts forward a separate argument for first-comer appropriation, which is what I had intended to refer to.
If this the of analysis is performed, I don’t have to judge the outcome. That’s left as an exercise for the consumer of that analysis. The defeat of socialist and interventionist ideas isn’t because it’s “Bad”; It’s because an honest appraisal of the outcome results in a society few men will prefer, if they understand the truth about what it necessitates.
Yes, exactly. This is why he addresses his theory to people who prefer peace and cooperation. Those who value conflict (to the degree that they accept that consistent valuation of it means it can also be employed against them) will not listen anyway to the extent that they refused to believe otherwise, and since they value conflict they can also be treated with it in kind. I think this strengthens his argument, because precious few people deny the value of peace and prosperity and desire conflict.
I think I’m engaged in too many discussions here.
I read this on my phone, and at first glance thought this was intended as an argument to support socialism (from another thread I’m engaged in), and was getting ready to come home and lay the smack down :)…
Anyway, I’ll be re-reading Hoppe down the road. I do love his writing, and generally prefer it to Rothbard, though I love Rothbard too. But Mises still holds the dearest place in my heart. I’m going to beg off any kind of further arguments about Hoppe’s theories. I don’t want to attempt to articulate an argument, I may not actually stand behind. I had issues with it, something didn’t sit well in my gut, I’m not sure what it was, hopefully in the future I can come back to it and resolve it one way or the other.
My best attempt at refuting Austrian Economics:
A Critique of Mises’s Praxeology
Judge for yourself as to whether it succeeds or not.
I think you were discussing to PTPT. You did not address praxeology.
Either way what is meant by refuting AE?
I accidentally linked the wrong page, and for some reason you can’t edit your posts in permanent threads. If you go to the first page, you’ll see that I addressed other aspects of praxeology.
What is meant by refuting AE? Presumably the same thing that is meant by the Permanent Keynesian Refutation Thread, except in regards to AE instead of Keynesianism.
What is is?
@John et al.
What is meant by refuting AE? Presumably the same thing that is meant by the Permanent Keynesian Refutation Thread, except in regards to AE instead of Keynesianism.
Could we summarize the Refutations and then draw up responses to that?