I’m not saying his proof is an appeal to agreement fallacy; I’m saying his notion of “justification” is. Also, the impossibility of disagreement is not in itself a useful proof. For example, it’s impossible to logically disagree with the following sentence:
“Everyone has the right to whqhwhhqwy eroigve oynjotiyn.” (incoherent argument)
Even if someone said, “It is not the case that everyone has the right to whqhwhhqwy eroigve oynjotiyn,” they would not be making a logical utterance, hence not a logical disagreement. If Hoppe’s equivocation I demonstrated before renders his argument incoherent, it would be impossible to logically disagree with it, but that wouldn’t be saying anything for his case.
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.
i address your supposed agreement fallacy already …
as for the idea that we could be living in a different universe where no-one was arguing rationally so the topic of what is morally possible never came up. so what? in a world of no moral agents, no one would be morally aggressing in that world. its not a problem for libertarians. does not harm the theory. it is congruent with moral agency, and a rationally capacity being important to morality, and to rational thinking.
I am saying that if Hoppe is equivocating as I demonstrated before, his argument is in effect nonsense, hence no one can logically disagree or - yes - agree with it. The above example was just an illustration of why Hoppe’s “impossibility of logical disagreement” is not enough for his purposes.
I construe this to mean that you reject the “writing in the stars” example as contrived. How about we take an example closer to home, like these forums. To (slightly) strawman Jacob Bloom, he said, “Might makes right.” Is your position
(a) Jacob was not rationally arguing, but only ostensibly arguing? (by your definitions above)
(b) Jacob was rationally arguing, but committing a performative contradiction? (If so, how?)
(c) Jacob was actually implicitly recognizing everyone else’s right to speak without interference? (If so, how do you know?)
You said he was using Interpretation 2 throughout, but you didn’t show how that would make his groundwork statements earlier in the quote make sense.
I do agree, though, that for now enough has been said. I would be happy to address any other (fully articulated) objections from anyone else. I would like to believe something like AE is possible, but I reason that it is not. If someone can convince me otherwise, I would certainly be delighted.
it would take a rational person to rationally argue and intellectually apprehend anything, but you deny the mind and can’t articulate anything on your own - you hold that position. Soon you’ll be advocating violence like sceniram and BP. It’s one slippery sophism into skepticism - all is an illusion AJ, it’s all an illusion.
I’m not. I support the NAP. I’m rejecting argumentation ethics as a jusitifcation for the NAP. If wilderness is too tunnel-visioned to understand that distinction, then that’s his problem.