I fully affirm what are real examples of performative contradictions, such as if I shout in your ear that “sound doesn’t exist”. Assuming that you’re not deaf, my statement self-detonates because it is empirically falsified on impact.
The problem is that this does not work outside of such a context. If I say “the initiation of aggression is morally justified”, this statement does not inherently self-detonate simply because I don’t bludgeon you with an axe. It is not empirically falseified on impact, because the mere fact that I don’t bludgeon you with an axe is not in and of itself a proof of the NAP.
No, it is not. But thanks for whining about it in your response. Which, invariably, you will do. Because you still don’t grasp what Hoppe is saying. Which isn’t my problem.
None. I don’t believe that the very act of argumentation proves or disproves any perscriptive premises. Only the actual content of a given argument can do that, not anything that is inherent in argumentation itself.
So Brainpolice believes that argumentation happens in a vacuum. That there’s not even any relation to language and grammar and syntax and all that. Some idealized Platonic form.
Yes, that is a conflation: the right to not have one’s person interfered with by an external authrority is not the same thing as the fact that one has physiological control of one’s body. One can have physiological control of one’s body while one’s person is interfered with by an external authority, and one can lack physiological control of one’s body while one’s peson is not interfered with by an external authority. They are not the same thing.
It isn’t me that isn’t grasping what Hoppe is saying, it’s you that isn’t grasping the inherent flaw in what he’s saying.
No, I do not believe that argumentation happens in a vacuum, I believe that the act of argumentation does not inherently prove or disprove ethical premises: that depends on the actual substance of the arguments, not the form of argumentation itself.
No, it isn’t. Learn what Hoppe is saying. Stop strawmanning. It’s annoying. And learn what a transcendental argument is. Are you seriously this ill-informed?
There is no strawman. I’m responding to precisely what the claim is at face value, and you’re denying that something is a conflation when it has been explained in detail why it is a conflation.
Liar. You believe that argumentation is not between humans, but some ideals which can never be realized. You believe that argumentation does not require anything for humans, such as language, acceptance of the other person having an opinion, and acceptance of the other person being able to understand you and accept what you’re saying. Because if you don’t hold to those: why bother arguing? This is praxeology. Learn it.
Yes, there is. You’re not responding to the claims at face value. So please don’t lie to me and say that you are. You’ve had this explained to you, so please–no more whining.
I believe I could say the same thing somewhat differently: If I make the statement “I deny that I have physiological control of my body,” this does not contradict the fact that I’m walking around, because physical facts cannot contradict one another (at least as we typically conceive things). Thus, my physical utterance cannot be said to “contradict” a separate physical movement of mine.
To find a performative contradiction then, we have to look not to two separate sets of physical facts (in which case there will be no contradiction), but to the relation of a physical fact or set of facts to an intention.
But then another problem arises:
The physical utterances a person may make are consistent with an innumerable number of intentions that person may have. Conversely, the intention held by an actor is consistent with an innumerable number of utterances he may make.
Someone may exclaim: “Socialism is great !” This physical utterance is perfectly consistent with any number of intentions a person may have. He may be at a gathering of libertarians, and saying this mockingly. There is obviously no contradiction.
Conversely, someone may exclaim: “Lockean private property is the only argumentatively justifiable social order!” This person may be a socialist at a socialist gathering, and saying this to mock libertarians. There is obviously no contradiction.
(the relevant works on these ideas are: Hayek’s essay “The facts of the social sciences,” and Searle’s book Minds, Brains and Science)
For Hoppe’s theory to become rigorous, he may then have to address intentions, and this will likely begin to get complicated.
There is the possibility of establishing a pure logical contradiction, as opposed to a performative contradiction. But my current understanding is that Hoppe’s theory does not seek to establish a pure logical contradiction.
Sorry, but that is a strawman. You cannot reasonably tell me what my position is for me. I never claimed anything of the sort along the lines of “ideal forms” or argumentation not taking place between humans. Neither have I denied that argumentation requires a means of communication, which requires the capacity to understand what others are saying. What I deny is the non-sequitor of “argumentation ethics” - that normative ethics, let alone a particular normative ethic, somehow inherently follows from any of this. It doesn’t. It’s a lame attempt to take Habermas’s ideas out of context and give libertarian norms a metaphysical weight that they simply do not have. Libertarian norms (or Hoppe’s specific formulation of them, for that matter) are not inherently derived from argumentation itself. This is pure sophistry.
Nope. You’ve made it quite clear that you deny that argumention has any requirements whatsoever. So now you’ve taken to lying about your own position. That’s not good. I suggest that you refrain from discussing this.
No, I have not. I have denied the non-sequitor that libertarian norms are a requirement for argumentation, or that libertarian norms are inherently proven by the very act of argumentation. You have failed to grasp what the problem is, not me.
Oh yes you have. You’ve denied that there are any requirements at all for argumentation. You have failed to grasp that there are requirements–not me. That is YOUR problem, and YOU need to deal with it. Don’t blame me for YOUR problems.
I think you bring up an important additional point with respect to intentions, I.E. what people actually mean by the terms in such statements. For example: “private property rights”, by itself, can be quite vague - which specific theory of private property rights? There are many. Once we get into specifics, an extended discourse is required, which cannot be so simply summed up by “argumentation ethics” - which seems to take one’s own specific meanings for granted in discourse.