Precisely. All ethical premises, including non-aggression, have to be justified. Whether one is taking a “pro” or “con” position on a given thing, one has to justify that position. Just because a given position is against something doesn’t mean that one doesn’t have to provide a justification for rejecting it.
given your rejection of the interpersonal norms inherent to argumentation you stroll into the following absurdity:
scenario setup:
we are arguing over whether the minimum wage causes unemployment, putting forward claims, and looking to convince each other over what is the true case. i.e. rational argumentation. then i get mad and i kill you with a revolver i keep for just such purposes.
conclusion:
now, based on your rejections, regarless of whatever honest ground you or a third party might have for holding that I had acted in an ‘ugly’ or ‘uncouth’ manner, or that I was not ‘nice’, you have certainly closed the door to accepting the true statement that my violence aborted rational argument. that one is anathema to the other . non-violence is congruent with rational argument, the opposite statement is false. I find it amusing you cannot agree.
Property isn’t always exchangeable obviously then. I am my property and that can’t be exchanged. I am still me.
Liberty is inherent. And it is freedom, not liberty, that has to do with what can be lost - must we go back to the basics, I’ve moved on from such elementary inquiries. In liberty my choices can be limited by the brute strength of another thereby limiting my liberty to combat versus reasonable dialogue but I still have liberty. It is the freedom in doing what I want without having to be confronted with aggression that can lessen. So conventionally you can easily state that my liberty is being limited by brute force (by an aggressor), but one first needs to intellectually apprehend liberty first to be able to reasonably denote these metaphysical differences - what is liberty and what is freedom.
Edit: but now after reading this thread til now, it’s obvious as in previous posts of yours from the past that you are trying to justify violence, whether you intend it or not doesn’t matter, and thus why dialogue goes nowhere with you…
I’ve already explained to you why this makes no sense. A definition of rights that cannot account for the existance of rights violations is incoherant. If someone bludgeons you over the head with an axe, not in self-defense, this would be a violation of your rights to life - of an aspect of your liberty. If we understand “liberty” as a perscription, it should be quite clear that it is not inherent, that it can be violated - otherwise it would not be a goal or a should in the first place.
I think you’re getting confused: I’m not saying that your “liberty” in the sense that you should have it goes away if I bludgeon you over the head with an axe, I’m saying that the actual realization or actualization of that should is clearly violated if I do so. As a perscription, liberty is something that has to be realized and respected, it is not a metaphysical given that it is realized or respected. So I’m not making the Stirnerite/amoral-egoist claim that “rights don’t exist” simply because I can violate them, I’m pointing out the rather obvious fact that rights are not inherently respected or actualized.
In short, you seem to be very blatantly confusing ought with is, the claim that liberty as an ought is “inherent” with the claim that liberty as an is is inherent. The former claim is not what I’m disputing, while the latter claim is incoherant for the obvious reasons that I’ve already explained. The respectable notion that “liberty is not given” was never meant to imply that liberty is some sort of metaphysical fact that cannot be violated in the sense that the law of gravity cannot be violated, it is meant to imply a rejection of legal positivism. Liberty is not like the law of gravity.
The one wanting to initiate force, i.e. add something which must be justified, must justify it. Not doing anything, i.e. not initiating force, does not have to be justified. You’ve now added a burden of proof shift to the list of fallacies you’ve used.
you’ve said that to various posters… [;)]
maybe that’s a void in your knowledge you can fill since you’ve brought it up…
you like to get stuck in categories upon categories… let’s call this prescription, this description, that in-between prescription non-ethic norm… You dive into over-rationalization traps… your making…
continue to analyze the mind of a criminal without taking into account the mind of a cop and as any undercover agent you may question which side your on one day… simply a suggestion.
Are you going to address the substance of my post, which very clearly tells you why you’re wrong, or are you just going to make off-the-cuff remarks that only function to demonstrate that you apparently don’t understand the issue of contention here?
It isn’t a void in my knowledge that your definition of liberty cannot take reality into account.
Pointing out the specific problems with incoherant ethical and political theories is not “over-rationalization”. The real problem is that your vastly oversimplified conception of liberty actually leads you into a whole host of serious philosophical problems that you don’t even make an attempt to take into account.
I’m not taking the side of the person who bludgeons you over the head with an axe, I’m using it as an example to point out the obvious fact that liberty is not on the same level as the law of gravity, as some sort of unbreakable law of nature in the sense of physics. That you don’t grasp this point is rather astounding.
You’re confused about what’s being talked about. I’m not even talking about whether or not people’s specific actions have to be justified, I’m saying that the moral proposition that the non-initiation of force is a valid ethical premise, that there is an obligation to abstain from initiating force in the first place, is what has to be justified - just like the moral proposition that the initiation of force is a valid ethical premise, that there is no obligation to abstain from initiating force in the first place, has to be justified. There is no shifting of the burden of proof here: I’m simply saying that all moral propositions have to be justified. Both or all sides of any given debate over moral propositions have to make a case for their positions. No double standard here.
of course you very clearly think that way, but I don’t.
it doesn’t demonstrate that at all which only goes to show the dishonesty before the actual subject has arisen in your post…
Liberty is. That’s a reality.
No, it’s starting from basics and then expanding from there in any given dialogue, but this discussion between you and I has me going back to the basics which is a road worn well…
What you don’t grasp is the criminal was at liberty to do so. The criminal applying property and the extension of such property - the axe - and the criminal applied his or her life too. Now lookie there… But of course life negating life isn’t good for life - and I mean for life itself.
eyeroll You really don’t get it, do you? You can’t even seem to understand the most obvious sense of the distinction between is and ought. That’s sad.
Take a look around yourself. We exist in societies in which liberty is systematically violated on a regular basis - that’s why we have liberty as a goal in the first place. All over the face of the planet, we have these institutions called “states” that institutionalize liberty violations. Our grasping for liberty as a goal is precisely because it is lacking in terms of its actualization in the current state of affairs. This is so simple and obvious that your lack of comprehension is rather astounding.
Let me take your formula and apply it in another direction, just as reasonably (if not more so):
Tyranny is. That’s a reality.
I’m explaining to no avail why your “basics” are basic flaws.
Now you’re basically using a definition of “liberty” that undermines itself. “Liberty” in the normative ethical sense does not mean people’s capacity to act. It is a state of being that is conditional upon the lack of interferance by an external authority.
Well read the rest of the paper and find out I suppose. I am stating that what you quoted is not in anyway fallacious or a sign of poor discourse.
Of course tyranny is. I mean this is pretty basic stuff there. But I don’t need to have dialogue with somebody this is obviously dishonest and demeans another person - I mean - that’s a sign of tending violence. see ya…
False. You’re confused about the claim being made by Hoppe, et al.
Now why is it so difficult for you to grasp the concept of a prerequisite?
I don’t fail to grasp the concept of a prerequisite - I deny that the fact that a lack of aggression is a prequisite for engaging in peaceful discourse has anything to do with actually philosophically justifying libertarianism. I maintian that it is completely irrelevant to an actual positive case for non-aggression as a normative ethic.
I’m not being dishonest. And I’m hardly being demeaning in a vacuum - you yourself tend to make off-the-cuff remarks.
I have to justify not bludgeoining you with a club?
eyeroll. No, the moral proposition of non-aggression has to be philosophically justified, just like all other moral propositions. That’s how real standards of debate over propositions actually work.
It’s odd that some of you keep switching to the context of legally justifying one’s actions, when I’m talking about the philosophical justification for the content of propositions.
Nothing against the moral proposition of non-aggression, but that isn’t necessarily in play. Couldn’t one just be neutral toward agression and still not see aggression as wrong?
What do you mean that that isn’t necessarily in play? That’s precisely what this is all about.
One could be neutral towards aggression while not seeing it as wrong, but that seems to be closer to an amoralist/stirnerite position, not libertarianism. Presumably, the people making use of the argumentation ethics are not neutral about aggression.
Good call. I learned this a long time ago. Some folks may be very bright, but their arrogance and lack of socialization skills keep them from progressing beyond their own wheelhouse.