Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

[z1235]

@nskinsella

Nirgraham is making great points. You are being disingenuous. 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? Please explain this, without subterfuge or sneaky tactics. Just answer it directly and honestly, please–because this confounds me.

Proposing a theory, making an argument, proving it, and/or refuting it is not a love-fest. The validity of an argument rests SOLELY in its content and has nothing whatsoever to do with the feelings, beliefs, or circumstances of the agent delivering it. So your questions above are cop-outs and non-sequitur of the highest order for the discussion at hand.

If I haven’t been clear enough already, let me explain further the silliness of AE’s "proof’, and how that silliness – if left unhindered – could be used to “prove” any belief and assumption made from anyone, anywhere(!). Argumentation Ethics (and its supporters) merely (a priori) DEFINE “argumentation” as an act that is EXCLUSIVELY performed between self-owned agents (Everything else MUST be a charade, as Nir suggested repeatedly). With this revolutionary definition then AE can “prove” that whoever “argues” must be self-owned, or they cannot “argue” against it without contradiction (because they must be self-owned, according to this revolutionary definition of “argumentation”.). So, for the tenth time, using/assuming X to prove X, doesn’t prove X. It merely assumes it, and that’s ALL it does!

But guess what? It doesn’t end there. By arbitrarily defining “argumentation” in a similar fashion (as something exclusively performed by adherents or believers of X) I can use AE to “prove” X where X could be: right to gang rape, right to slave ownership, right to collective ownership of everything, right to universal health care, laws of The Flying Spagetti Monster (TFSM), etc. By using performative contradiction and defining “argumentation” as something EXCLUSIVELY done by adherents/believers/supporters of X no one could possibly “argue” against X without contradicting themselves, thus elevating X to the level of an axiom and a Natural Right or Natural Law of X!

Now if adherents of the Natural Right to Gang Rape, Natural Right to Slave Ownership, Natural Right to Collective Ownership, Natural Right to Universal Health Care, and Natural Laws of The Flying Spagetti Monster all came to the same party with the adherents of Natural Rights of Self-Ownership – all convinced in the axiomatic, thus natural, objective powers of their beliefs – how would an “argument” look like when everyone else’s “argument” must (axiomatically, and by definition) be a charade!

This is the reason why making revolutionary definitions of “argumentation” is plain silly. Argumentation and logical discourse have existed long before self-ownership and libertarianism were invented as concepts. They are META-concepts in relation to self-ownership and “natural law”, as agents (free or otherwise) have been arguing over centuries under feelings, beliefs, and societal structures FAR removed from freedom and liberty. After all, I see many people here define the status-quo as a form of slavery, and yet we argue still.

I hope I made myself clearer.

Now, can we please conclude that AE doesn’t PROVE anything, and close this subject once and for all?

Z.

[nskinsella]

@z1235

@nskinsella

Nirgraham is making great points. You are being disingenuous. 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? Please explain this, without subterfuge or sneaky tactics. Just answer it directly and honestly, please–because this confounds me.

Proposing a theory, making an argument, proving it, and/or refuting it is not a love-fest. The validity of an argument rests SOLELY in its content and has nothing whatsoever to do with the feelings, beliefs, or circumstances of the agent delivering it. So your questions above are cop-outs and non-sequitur of the highest order for the discussion at hand.

You are just evading the question. I repeat it, not b/c you might answer it–it’s clear you are too evasive to do this–but so that others lurking can see that the only way to avoid the logic of AE is to evade these questions. I repeat: you already agree with us that “there is a basis” for preferring one set of norms over the other. So how can you attack us for simply saying what you already believe? Please explain.

As for the remainder of your “objections,” Hoppe has dispatched most of these already in his four Replies… in the appendix to his Economics & Ethics of Private Property. I dispatched the rest in my Defending Argumentation Ethics*.*

[Angurse]

I think everyone here (with the possible exception of Kinsella) should stop and take the time to read up on AE and Discourse Ethics in general, from the little I’ve read almost all of these objections aren’t new and many miss the point of AE entirely.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@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.

Yes, there is. That you are unwilling to acknowledge it is no one’s problem but your own.

[z1235]

@nskinsella

You are just evading the question. I repeat it, not b/c you might answer it–it’s clear you are too evasive to do this–but so that others lurking can see that the only way to avoid the logic of AE is to evade these questions.

Alright, I’ll take your “bait”.

@nskinsella

I repeat: you already agree with us that “there is a basis” for preferring one set of norms over the other.

Please explain “there is a basis”. Yes, I, just like everyone else, have a personal preference for my own set of norms.

@nskinsella

So how can you attack us for simply saying what you already believe? Please explain.

I am not attacking anyone. (Argumentation is a manifestation of peaceful behavior, remember?) I am simply stating that AE proves NOTHING. This statement has nothing to do with my or your beliefs. A believer in God is perfectly consistent when stating that no one has proven God’s existence. Beliefs are called that exactly BECAUSE they are NOT (nor are they required) to be proven.

@nskinsella

As for the remainder of your “objections,” Hoppe has dispatched most of these already in his four Replies… in the appendix to his Economics & Ethics of Private Property. I dispatched the rest in my Defending Argumentation Ethics*.*

I had already read those. There’s nothing in there that “dispatches” my refutation. I’m open to dispatching back whatever segments you deem particularly striking.

Z.

[Juan]

Hey z1235 you are both an amoralist and a so called ‘miniarchist’ ? Or maybe you are a member of the hayek church and think that the state can have even more functions than providing security ?

[nskinsella]

@z1235

@nskinsella

You are just evading the question. I repeat it, not b/c you might answer it–it’s clear you are too evasive to do this–but so that others lurking can see that the only way to avoid the logic of AE is to evade these questions.

Alright, I’ll take your “bait”.

@nskinsella

I repeat: you already agree with us that “there is a basis” for preferring one set of norms over the other.

Please explain “there is a basis”. Yes, I, just like everyone else, have a personal preference for my own set of norms.

Good enough. So, you agree wiht me on libertarian rights. Good.

@nskinsella

So how can you attack us for simply saying what you already believe? Please explain.

I am not attacking anyone. (Argumentation is a manifestation of peaceful behavior, remember?)

THanks for that admission about AE. Good.

I am simply stating that AE proves NOTHING.

Sure. It proves no one can argumentatively justify any ethic contrary to libertarian NAP.

[z1235]

@nskinsella

Sure. It proves no one can argumentatively justify any ethic contrary to libertarian NAP.

Interesting. How so?

Z.

[Juan]

Hey Z could I have an answer ? What’s your political position ? Do you ‘believe’ in minimal statism or are you a libertarian ?

[z1235]

@Juan

Hey z1235 you are both an amoralist and a so called ‘miniarchist’ ? Or maybe you are a member of the hayek church and think that the state can have even more functions than providing security ?

I prefer not to use labels – not for myself, not for others. (Note that I never use them nor I refer to them in my posts.) The labels you allow to be slapped on your forehead are tacit permissions for others to speak in your name, and I’ve seen (and experienced) the drawbacks of that too often in my past. There’s that collectivist undertone implied in any label that rubs me the wrong way – more so, the older I get. So in that light, I would describe myself as merely ME, an extreme individualist, first and foremost – building a perception of the world around me on my own, one brick at a time. I didn’t mean to be evasive. This is the honest truth.

Z.

[z1235]

@nskinsella

You are just evading the question. I repeat it, not b/c you might answer it–it’s clear you are too evasive to do this–but so that others lurking can see that the only way to avoid the logic of AE is to evade these questions.

Now since I answered your questions, please give me the courtesy of picking up where we last left off (presented below for your convenience):

@nskinsella

It shows that only the NAP is justified, and that any ethic that is contrary to the NAP cannot be justified, siply because justification is argumentative justification, so that any justification has to be compatible with whatever norms are necessarily presupposed in argumentation itself. So the only question, I see it, is whether or not there ARE any norms presupposed in argumentation. If so, what are they? I think there clearly are norms, and they are the grundnorms of libertarianism.

@z1235

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.

Note that (relevant to the above) I define ownership as an “(1) exclusive (3) right to a control over a scarce resource” (Just so we’re on the same page).

@nskinsella

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.

@z1235

No difference. If you presuppose that 2+2=5 is correct in order to prove that 2+3=6 (in a system in which the number X after the ‘+’ sign is really X+1), then that proof would have no meaning whatsoever (or would be utterly wrong!) for the proponents of the system in which the number X after the ‘+’ sign is merely X.

…meaning: Using presuppositions WITHIN “proofs” that are supposed to prove them proves NOTHING.

Z.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

z, do you understand the reason that denying the law of identity involves a performative contradiction? Now since I’m going to assume you do, how about translating that into what we’re talking about. Then you’ll no longer have any silly hang-ups.

[scineram]

Frankly we are denying self-ownership, not law of identity.

[z1235]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

z, do you understand the reason that denying the law of identity involves a performative contradiction?

“A is A” (law of identity) is the a priori (axiom) of all logic and knowledge. It’s not “proven” by performative contradiction, nor by anything else. It just is.

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Now since I’m going to assume you do, how about translating that into what we’re talking about. Then you’ll no longer have any silly hang-ups.

I’m afraid you’ll have to show me the steps of how “A is A” helps AE prove anything.

Z.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

z, do you understand the reason that denying the law of identity involves a performative contradiction?

@z1235

“A is A” (law of identity) is the a priori (axiom) of all logic and knowledge. It’s not “proven” by performative contradiction, nor by anything else. It just is.

“A is A” is, in the language from Höppe’s Four Replies, an “a priori true is-statement”.

KoB didn’t say anything was proven by performative contradiction. He said that you denying the law of identity is a performative contradiction (A is not A). The law of identity is still an a priori true statement.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@scineram

Frankly we are denying self-ownership, not law of identity.

Frankly, it’s the same type of error. But I don’t expect you to grasp something so mind-bogglingly simple.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

z, do you understand the reason that denying the law of identity involves a performative contradiction?

@z1235

“A is A” (law of identity) is the a priori (axiom) of all logic and knowledge.

And denying it involves using it, right? Same with self-ownership. Not my problem that something so simple is beyond your ken.

[nskinsella]

@z1235

@Juan

Hey z1235 you are both an amoralist and a so called ‘miniarchist’ ? Or maybe you are a member of the hayek church and think that the state can have even more functions than providing security ?

I prefer not to use labels – not for myself, not for others.

So, you’re a non-labeler?

[nskinsella]

@scineram

Frankly we are denying self-ownership, not law of identity.

So you believe in slavery. Just great.

[scineram]

If I do that proves libertarian ethic how?