I haven’t seen anything of his arguing such positions nor advocating violence at all.
what’s in the bag?
No, sophist: it’s true. Your attempt at counterexample falls on its face for being special pleading.
Actually, I’m saying “presupposition of the fact of non-interference” does not imply “presupposition of the right of non-interference.”
Normally I would ask for a definition of “right,” but in this case “presupposition the fact of non-interference” is fully sufficient for engaging in discourse, so that by virtually any conceivable definition of “right” what I am saying would still be accurate. However, if someone can define “right” so as to rescue Hoppe’s argument, I am all ears.
For a simple example of why argumentation ethics (as presented in Hoppe’s quote in this thread) is invalid, imagine the following scenario.
A man in a wheelchair with a megaphone says, “There are no ‘rights’ not to be interfered with. Everyone should compete to get their words out the fastest, before someone can interfere with them.” His opponent (Hoppe) is 1 mile away, also speaking on a megaphone. The man does not recognize Hoppe’s right not to be interfered with, but he does recognize that Hoppe has spoken without interference, hears what he says, and continues disagreeing.
Is the man committing a performative contradiction? No! He’s not even being hypocritical. He is stating his argument, and whether he tries to violate Hoppe’s “rights” or not doesn’t even matter for at least as long as it takes him to reach Hoppe - say 15 minutes on his wheelchair. And we may just as well posit that he doesn’t make any effort to violate Hoppe’s “rights,” because there’s really no reason why non-recognition of a “right” would imply any inclination to violate said “right.”
Of course, there is really no need to bring in the wheelchair or the distance, because an argument can be over and done with in seconds between arguors seated across a room, but I hope it drives home how broken Hoppe’s theory is.
If anyone is still not convinced, consider another example:
3000 years ago, somehow writing appeared in the stars for all to see, and that writing coincidentally detailed exactly Hoppe’s own theory of rights.
According to Hoppe, his own theory of rights would not be “justified” until someone actually freely agreed with it and stated such and everyone recognized that he had a right not to be interfered with while voicing his agreement. Hence Hoppean “justification” amounts to nothing more than an appeal to agreement fallacy. In fact, if no one ever spoke of it, perhaps out of reverence to the majesty of his amazing theory written in the stars, but followed his theory of rights anyway, the theory would still not be “justified” by Hoppe’s standards. Hoppe apparently fails to realize that the source of an idea does not determine its validity.
of course cause you don’t have any knowledge to say otherwise.
your wheelchair man is not rationally arguing. you are just revealing that you arent familiar with the crucial difference between ostensibly arguing and rationally arguing.
AJ likes to argue from the perspective of the person that doesn’t know anything and he’s that person but I hope not to the degree he likes to egg on
Go on. Articulate your case.
why cause you can’t?
first i will show you an argument that i think even you will grant is not a rational argument.
''hey buddy, your team can’t play for shit!"
“fuck do you know about sport asshole!?”
they then procede to hit each other with barstools.
ostensibly there is an argument. a dispute as to the performance ability of a group of men in shorts, relative to other similar groups of men
they are not rationally arguing it. the point at stake is not being debated. the violence present gives lie to the pretense that they are ‘arguing’ .
if rather the dialogue went, ''hey buddy i respectfully disagree, do you know they won 5 out of their last 6 games, a better streak than anyone else so far in the season"
“oh you think? golly, well, i tend to discount that, since observing last years performance, i percieved their last 5 matches to have been against teams with a poor performance record, personally my money is on x…”
and on it goes. actually rationally arguing.
If you think it is a crime prove it.
No, Hoppe is clear that its a negative proof. it obviously is. therefore . there is no agreement fallacy. you could call it the impossibility of formulating a coherend disagreement. i.o.w. the appeal is not to agreement, the appeal is to the impossibility of disagreement. (this entails that there can be agreement, but we arent merely reliant on counting ‘agre-ers’ to prove the point)
Crimes are crimes. That’s why they are called crimes. I hope you get it now.
why cause you can’t?
I understand what you mean by ostensibly arguing vs. rationally arguing. Thank you. However,
-
Why cannot the man in the wheelchair be rationally arguing? If he does indeed intend to interfere with Hoppe’s free speech, that would be one thing, but suppose he has no such intention or even inclination. That is, suppose he said, "There are no ‘rights’ not to be interfered with. Everyone can - if they want to - compete to get their words out the fastest, before someone can interfere with them." And what of this, which I wrote immediately after: [And we may just as well posit that he doesn’t make any effort to violate Hoppe’s “rights,” because there’s really no reason why non-recognition of a “right” would imply any inclination to violate said “right.”]
-
Or, if this is the point of contention, why not take my second example where there is clearly no violence at play?
Our point it is not a proof as there is no performative contradiction.
Even if there was that is still not proof.
i can prove it to scineram assuming that he will rationally argue with me… of course, this will presuppose no initiatory aggression against me, and anything he says within the rational argument that is supposed to constitute part of the rational argument will have to be congruent with this presupposition.
but that’s not cause I’m especially talented. lol,I think any of you could do it…
Tax evasion, traffiking, prostitution you mean?
we can prove that those are not crimes.
but you cannot prove that killing innocents is not crime
do you have a solid grasp on crime or is it something you struggle with? Im curious if this is Advocatus Diaboli or if you are a thorough skeptic, that maybe isnt sure that you are even you ? [:P]
scineram it’s all an illusion
