Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

[nskinsella]

@AJ

@nskinsella

Let me ask you flat out: do you respect and recognize my, and Nirg’s, rights–or not? If not, then who cares what you think, any more than we care what a robber thinks while robbing us? If you DO – and I assume you do, if you are posting here–then that means you do, for some reason, value liberal rights over and above aggression, chaos, etc. Right? Now, all the AE argument says is that in argumentation, there is a basis for preferring peace and related norms, over aggression and related norms. Now, you already agree with us that “there is a basis” for preferring one over the other. So how in the world can you attack us for simply saying what you already believe?

I earlier argued that these theories only apply to people who already accept objective ethics or rights. I rest my case.

“apply”? What does this mean, exactly?

And let me ask you: why kind of proof of rights would “apply” to those criminal-minded who are willing to commit or condone aggression against others? Do tell.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Wouldn’t you have to assume it in order to prove it?

@z1235

You’re not helping.

But I am. That you’re incapable of grasping the implication isn’t my problem. What implication, you ask? I’m glad you did. The implication is that there are certain grounds which are necessarily true–apodictic.

[Amanojack]

@nskinsella

“apply”? What does this mean, exactly?

Clearer to say, “be persuasive to.”

@nskinsella

And let me ask you: why kind of proof of rights would “apply” to those criminal-minded who are willing to commit or condone aggression against others? Do tell.

Who says there is such a proof? What if all we can do is persuade? You also seemed to overlook this possibility earlier when you wrote:

@nskinsella

@z1235

My point is that this is only relevant to “nice” agents, i.e. agents who already accept the a priori of niceness. Both theories “prove” niceness (objective ethics) ONLY if niceness is accepted a priori (hence, the circularity assertion). In some sense they are preaching to the converted, and have no logical or convincing power over the rest.

Re your last sentence: if so, so what? Imagine a world where there “are” “natural rights” (whatever it means for natural rights to “exist”), and that you have a Randian Natural Law Ultimate Proof of them. Or, one handed down by God: the ultimate proof of rights. Still, there will be two classes of people: those who choose (for whatever reason) to respect your rights, and those who choose to violate them. For the former, if you give them your Ultimate Proof, you are preaching to the converted. For the latter, they aer still free to say, “okay, nice proof,” and then proceed to bash you in the head.

So what is the difference betwwen this type of proof and AE? They are exactly the same in this respect.

You seem to be defending AE by saying that it’s no worse (has no less convincing power) than even an - imagined - Ultimate Proof of natural rights, or one handed down by God. I think this just makes z1235’s point even stronger, for it suggests that any attempt to “prove” natural law is completely fruitless.

[nirgrahamUK]

@z1235

Strawman. I never said such a thing.

ah, so you can conceptually differentiate between a real argument and a charade of such.

@z1235

ow can you reconcile your statements that (on one hand) the validity of a logical argument is independent of its source and circumstances, and at the same time state that the validity of my (and your) arguments is somehow different (diminished to a “charade”) depending on what you or I believe, joke about, or depending on whether or not you are being coerced by an evil philosopher (or me being tickled by a slave-mistress)?

ok. you simply don’t understand that a rational argument between multiple parties is not identical with a set of propositions which may be a ‘valid’ or ‘invalid’ arguments under logical analysis.

[nskinsella]

@AJ

@nskinsella

“apply”? What does this mean, exactly?

Clearer to say, “be persuasive to.”

EXACTLY. Good. so this makes it clear that you are criticizing AE because you think it won’t be “persuasive” to some people. But persuasiveness is not the same as truth. So who cares if you argue, or even show, that AE is not “persuasive”?

@nskinsella

And let me ask you: why kind of proof of rights would “apply” to those criminal-minded who are willing to commit or condone aggression against others? Do tell.

Who says there is such a proof? What if all we can do is persuade?

aha. so you do care only about persuasivness. That IS your standard of truth. I flushed you out; very good.

But let me axe you: persuade of WHAT?

You also seemed to overlook this possibility earlier when you wrote:

@nskinsella

@z1235

My point is that this is only relevant to “nice” agents, i.e. agents who already accept the a priori of niceness. Both theories “prove” niceness (objective ethics) ONLY if niceness is accepted a priori (hence, the circularity assertion). In some sense they are preaching to the converted, and have no logical or convincing power over the rest.

Re your last sentence: if so, so what? Imagine a world where there “are” “natural rights” (whatever it means for natural rights to “exist”), and that you have a Randian Natural Law Ultimate Proof of them. Or, one handed down by God: the ultimate proof of rights. Still, there will be two classes of people: those who choose (for whatever reason) to respect your rights, and those who choose to violate them. For the former, if you give them your Ultimate Proof, you are preaching to the converted. For the latter, they aer still free to say, “okay, nice proof,” and then proceed to bash you in the head.

So what is the difference betwwen this type of proof and AE? They are exactly the same in this respect.

You seem to be defending AE by saying that it’s no worse (has no less convincing power) than even an - imagined - Ultimate Proof of natural rights, or one handed down by God.

Not so. I am showing that this criticism is incoherent --that it makes no sense to single out AE as being faulty on the grounds that it might not persuade criminals, since this “problem” arises from the very nature of normativity: the fact that norms are NOT causal laws, and CAN be violated.

I think this just makes z1235’s point even stronger, for it suggests that any attempt to “prove” natural law is completely fruitless.

AE is not an attempt to prove natural law. It is a way of showing why no non-libertarian norm can ever be argumentatively justified. You AE critics seem incapable of understanding this simple point. I think it is because you are in some sense anti-intellectual, and activist-results oriented (hence your focus on 'results" and “persuasiveness”). You seem to disregard the signficance of showing that, say, only the NAP is argumentatively justifiable, because to you, this doesn’t do very much–because it’s not self-enforceable. Because it’s not a causal law, but only a wimpy, non-self-enforcing “normative” one. You are in a sense monists-scientistic types, because you really want to collapse everything down to the causal realm. If a proof of rights can be disregarded, why, what good is it? It only matters if it works; if it persuades. So you scoff at and blow off normative claims–like an economist with physics envy, you think only “norms” that “have teeth” “matter”. And real norms don’t, os you pooh-pooh them, and retreat into scientism-monism.

[liberty_student]

@nskinsella

aha. so you do care only about persuasivness. That IS your standard of truth. I flushed you out; very good.

That’s a strawman. He never claimed to only care about persuasiveness.

@nskinsella

You AE critics seem incapable of understanding this simple point. I think it is because you are in some sense anti-intellectual, and activist-results oriented (hence your focus on 'results" and “persuasiveness”). You seem to disregard the signficance of showing that, say, only the NAP is argumentatively justifiable, because to you, this doesn’t do very much–because it’s not self-enforceable. Because it’s not a causal law, but only a wimpy, non-self-enforcing “normative” one. You are in a sense monists-scientistic types, because you really want to collapse everything down to the causal realm. If a proof of rights can be disregarded, why, what good is it? It only matters if it works; if it persuades. So you scoff at and blow off normative claims–like an economist with physics envy, you think only “norms” that “have teeth” “matter”. And real norms don’t, os you pooh-pooh them, and retreat into scientism-monism.

Super disappointing.

[Amanojack]

<Note: full quotes included for context where necessary>

@nskinsella

EXACTLY. Good. so this makes it clear that you are criticizing AE because you think it won’t be “persuasive” to some people. But persuasiveness is not the same as truth. So who cares if you argue, or even show, that AE is not “persuasive”?

No, that’s why I was “criticizing” estoppel (really just asking for clarification). You’ve yet to address my main critique of AE (which is a critique).

@nskinsella

@AJ

@nskinsella

And let me ask you: why kind of proof of rights would “apply” to those criminal-minded who are willing to commit or condone aggression against others? Do tell.

Who says there is such a proof? What if all we can do is persuade?

aha. so you do care only about persuasivness. That IS your standard of truth. I flushed you out; very good.

Non sequitur and avoids the issue: What other reason would you have for providing a “proof” if not to persuade or convince?

@nskinsella

But let me axe you: persuade of WHAT?

Obvious from the quote above: Persuade of natural rights (as opposed to proving them).

@nskinsella

@AJ

@nskinsella

@z1235

My point is that this is only relevant to “nice” agents, i.e. agents who already accept the a priori of niceness. Both theories “prove” niceness (objective ethics) ONLY if niceness is accepted a priori (hence, the circularity assertion). In some sense they are preaching to the converted, and have no logical or convincing power over the rest.

Re your last sentence: if so, so what? Imagine a world where there “are” “natural rights” (whatever it means for natural rights to “exist”), and that you have a Randian Natural Law Ultimate Proof of them. Or, one handed down by God: the ultimate proof of rights. Still, there will be two classes of people: those who choose (for whatever reason) to respect your rights, and those who choose to violate them. For the former, if you give them your Ultimate Proof, you are preaching to the converted. For the latter, they aer still free to say, “okay, nice proof,” and then proceed to bash you in the head.

So what is the difference betwwen this type of proof and AE? They are exactly the same in this respect.

You seem to be defending AE by saying that it’s no worse (has no less convincing power) than even an - imagined - Ultimate Proof of natural rights, or one handed down by God.

Not so. I am showing that this criticism is incoherent --that it makes no sense to single out AE as being faulty on the grounds that it might not persuade criminals, since this “problem” arises from the very nature of normativity: the fact that norms are NOT causal laws, and CAN be violated.

The goalposts seem to have shifted: Now you’re talking about criminals, not just those who don’t accept objective ethics?

Let’s recap:

z1235 wrote: “In some sense [the theories] are preaching to the converted, and have no logical or convincing power over the rest.” [distinguishes between those who accept objective ethics or natural law and those who don’t]

You wrote: “Still, there will be two classes of people: those who choose (for whatever reason) to respect your rights, and those who choose to violate them.” [distinguishes between those who choose to violate rights and those who don’t]

You then wrote: “…it makes no sense to single out AE as being faulty on the grounds that it might not persuade criminals…” [same distinction, strawman of z1235’s point]

Hence this doesn’t address z1235’s point. The question isn’t, “Will it persuade criminals?” but rather, “Will it persuade anyone who doesn’t accept objective ethics?”

@nskinsella

@AJ

I think this just makes z1235’s point even stronger, for it suggests that any attempt to “prove” natural law is completely fruitless.

AE is not an attempt to prove natural law. It is a way of showing why no non-libertarian norm can ever be argumentatively justified.

All right, but make the obvious substitutions and my point holds just as well for AE:

I think this just makes z1235’s point even stronger, for it suggests that any attempt to prove that “no non-libertarian norm can ever be argumentatively justified” is completely fruitless.

…

[Edit: KoB, point taken]

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

Is it that time again? Time for a lesson in what ad hominem means?

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is “ad hominem”. It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don’t need it when they’ve got ad hominem on their side. It’s the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn’t there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person’s arguments.

Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent’s sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

The ad hominem fallacy fallacy

[E_R_Olovetto]

@AJ

@nskinsella

Let me ask you flat out: do you respect and recognize my, and Nirg’s, rights–or not? If not, then who cares what you think, any more than we care what a robber thinks while robbing us? If you DO – and I assume you do, if you are posting here–then that means you do, for some reason, value liberal rights over and above aggression, chaos, etc. Right? Now, all the AE argument says is that in argumentation, there is a basis for preferring peace and related norms, over aggression and related norms. Now, you already agree with us that “there is a basis” for preferring one over the other. So how in the world can you attack us for simply saying what you already believe?

I earlier argued that these theories only apply to people who already accept objective ethics or rights. I rest my case.

What does objective ethics and objective rights mean? I honestly do not understand what you mean at all and I hear these phrases repeated here so often.

Please someone, anyone, give me a tight definition so there will be no confusion what you are talking about with these two phrases.

[wilderness]

AJ,

a suggestion. you’re not helping in the dialogue because you are not persuading anything from what i read. if you are, then repeat it or clarify. what are you trying to persuade? put the spoon where the pudding is.

[E_R_Olovetto]

I still really want an answer, because I really don’t understand what some people keep going on about.

Maybe it will help if some of you read Kinsella’s paper again…

Estoppel is a well-known common-law principle that prevents or precludes someone from making a claim in a lawsuit that is inconsistent with his prior conduct, if some other person has changed his position to his detriment in reliance on the prior conduct (referred to as “detrimental reliance”). Estoppel thus denies a party the ability to assert a fact or right that he otherwise could. Estoppel is a widely-applicable legal principle that has countless manifestations.8 The Roman law and today’s civil law contain the similar doctrine venire contra factum proprium, or “no one can contradict his own act.” Under this principle, “no one is allowed to ignore or deny his own acts, or the consequences thereof, and claim a right in opposition to such acts or consequences.” The principle behind estoppel can also be seen in common sayings such as “actions speak louder than words,” “practice what you preach” or “put your money where your mouth is,” all of which embody the idea that actions and assertions should be consistent. As Lord Coke stated, the word “estoppel” is used “because a man’s own act or acceptance stoppeth or closeth up his mouth to allege or plead the truth.”

Beyond all of this nonsense like, “But I might be a slave! How can you know?” and “blah blah blah eternal ownership rights to my vocal chords”, what is so bad about this legal tradition? You stabbed someone in the throat out of the blue, how can you argue meaningfully against the same or worse being done to you then?

[Angurse]

@AJ

I think this just makes z1235’s point even stronger, for it suggests that any attempt to prove that “no non-libertarian norm can ever be argumentatively justified” is completely fruitless.

Fruitless how? If fruitful means persuasion then possibly no. But he doesn’t really seem to care. So this inquiry seems… fruitless.

[nskinsella]

Great point, E.R. I really like that paper. When I read it, I think to myself, “Wow, this is good… I agree.. I agree. ..good point there… oh oh, I hope the author covers THIS point next…” and then – mirabile dictu!-- he does!

[Juan]

@AJ

(has no less convincing power)

I wonder what are the units for measuring ‘convincing power’ ? HPs ? Watts ? Or some unit defined by AJ himself ? Maybe the unit is named after him ? It takes 3.76 AJs to convince a commie.

[twistedbydsign99]

@z1235

This one:

“The only norm ACTUALLY presupposed in argumentation is de facto control of one’s head during the length of the argument. There’s no need whatsoever to presuppose: (1) exclusive (2) permanent control over that head (much less the rest of the body), nor is there the necessity to presuppose one’s (3) right to such control. Argumentation between two heads can go on for a very long time without ANY of the above three AE presuppositions.”

Please produce for me a talking head in a jar, otherwise I will assume the mind, body… and head as one unit. But seriously I need some further explanation of your position, you’ve clearly stated your denial of the exclusive/permanent/ etc qualities when doubting the self ownership of the heads, but what I want to know is what is your counter theory? If the heads don’t own themselves can you give me a plausible alternative?

[scineram]

It is useful to state for reference the nuke that blows argumentation ethics into oblivion:

There is no logical, performative or any contradiction whatsoever in the denial of self-ownership.

[wilderness]

@scineram

..

wrong

[nirgrahamUK]

and heres the nuke that destroys critics of AE

If you don’t understand that raional argumentation presupposes inter-personal norms, you will not be a party to a rational argument with me. Even if I am wrong about the moon being made of cheese, I won’t be corrected by you…

[scineram]

Vigorous assertion is still no substitute for correct argument.

[nirgrahamUK]

is someone talking?