As for those who mindlessly say, “but all you have proven is that you can’t argumentatively justify socialist ethics,” I reply with a quote from HOppe’s EEPP:
The reaction from the other Randian side, represented by Rasmussen, is different. He has fewer difficulties recognizing the nature of my argument but then asks me in turn “So what? Why should an a priori proof of the libertarian property theory make any difference? Why not engage in aggression anyway?” Why indeed?! But then, why should the proof that 1+1=2 make any difference? One certainly can still act on the belief that 1+1=3. The obvious answer is “because a propositional justification exists for doing one thing, but not for doing another.” But why should we be reasonable, is the next come-back. Again, the answer is obvious. For one, because it would be impossible to argue against it; and further, because the proponent raising this question would already affirm the use of reason in his act of questioning it. This still might not suffice and everyone knows that it would not, for even if the libertarian ethic and argumentative reasoning must be regarded as ultimately justified, this still does not preclude that people will act on the basis of unjustified beliefs either because they don’t know, they don’t care, or they prefer not to know. I fail to see why this should be surprising or make the proof somehow defective. More than this cannot be done by propositional argument.
The hypocritical, petulant critics of AE are demanding more than this. they are demanding that they be shown why they should believe what they already do. They are stamping their feet, demanding that you make the proof a causal law, that you make scientism and monism real, before they accept it.
I agree that speaking loosely there is a difference between rational argumentation and charades thereof, but Hoppe is not purporting to speak loosely; he is purporting to present a rigorous proof. Until clearly defined, “charade” is just a weasel word. Adherence to rigorous definitions is not optional when attempting a rigorous proof. As Lilburne once put it, “Live by the word-fu, die by the word-fu.”
what is loose about it? two people fist-fighting in a pub about which is the superior baseball team are engaging in a charade of argumentation whilst two men sat civilized at the bar debating the merits and demerits of either team are rational arguing (they obey norms the fist fighters ignore)
Giving examples is good enough for an intuitive grasp of the concept, but it doesn’t constitute a definition rigorous enough for logical proof purposes. It’s not that I think you can’t clearly define charades; it’s that the game (of seeing whether the proof pans out) doesn’t begin until that definition is crystallized.
A new and much improved proof (vs Argumentation Ethics) for the right to self-ownership and property acquisition via homesteading – only requiring ONE agent being caught in a performative contradiction vs. AE’s two!
No one can write anything that denies self-ownership (and property acquisition via homesteading) without contradicting themselves – for how could possibly anyone be writing (as opposed to merely pretending to do so, i.e. performing a charade) if they didn’t own themselves? In addition, in order for someone to be writing at all they would have to be alive, and for that they would have to be owning some property (right to exclusive control of scarce resources) in order to sustain themselves (food, shelter, etc.). And how else could they have possibly acquired this property if not by homesteading (mixing their labor)? The above described performative contradiction raises the right to self-ownership and property acquisition through homesteading to an axiomatic status. Q.E.D.
Coming soon: THINKING ETHICS, SINGING ETHICS, and SULKING ETHICS!
This does not follow if “justified” is not defined in a meaningful way with respect to “normative statements.” Until it is, we cannot know whether Hoppe’s statement contains a contradiction, in which case it would fall prey to the principle of explosion. I do not see why Hoppe couldn’t have used a word with a less wide array of possible interpretations, especially if clarity is his aim.
Since the rest of that quote is based entirely on this initial ambiguity, it cannot be examined charitably at this time.
Once again, the heart of the problem is the definitions. I think clarifying the definitions will make all such arguments fall apart.
If Hoppe were really trying to construct a proof he would have been more careful to define his terms clearly. By being unclear and ambiguous with wording, any theorist can forever dodge decisive criticism. This is a familiar situation to all who’ve studied Marxism: “Workers are being exploited” relies on a special definition of exploitation. Clarifying definitions makes the labor theory of value evaporate, just as it does with the proof of argumentation ethics.
Regardless of how enormous the body of literature is on this subject, if there is nowhere a clear statement of definitions then it’s worse than useless and, in my opinion, it reflects poorly on libertarian scholarship.
I think that before people take seriously any of your endless ramblings, you should define ALL the words you use. Please do so or stop posting your ‘refutations’.
It seems you are mathematics teacher who’s been brainwashed with a particular pseudo-theory about the nature of mathematics. A few months ago you found libertarianism and you thought you could apply your lame logical positivism to it. Boy are you confused.
