Hoppe's Theory of Argumentation

[wilderness]

@thelion

Lets go back to Gossen-Weber-Mises’ value free contention:

How is Hoppe not being “value-free”? You would need to prove that what Hoppe has logically argued is in fact what Hoppe values. Same as Mises. Mises in his book “Liberalism” states that to be a liberal it entails the protection of life, liberty, health, and private property. Obviously that’s John Locke’s natural rights. I link the quote. [second Mises quote in that post]

@thelion

‘Right’ in common language refers to someone’s ‘belief’ in the right. Logic is true whether one believes or not.

Example: children may disagree at first 2 + 2 = 4. But if they, or even if the whole world disagreed, the 2 + 2 = 4 will still be a reality.

ok

@thelion

Suppose I say slavery is not justified.

I am not making an moral argument (an argument that is subjective). I am making an objective argument which uses subjective data. The predicate is subjective, but as the major premise is subjective. Yet the whole process was objective. Given my subjective predicate, it could not be any other way.

ok. Natural rights involve that which is “subjective” and “objective” too.

@thelion

1. Because wants and want-satisfaction exists only in one person, which is a sensory entity that can distinguish between itself and its wants, on the one hand, and want-satisfying objects on the other hand, we find that slavery is theft (it violates self ownership).

2. Theft cannot coexist with the market system.

3. Slavery as theft cannot maximize my own wealth in the market system, as it reduces the amount of exchanges.

4. Slavery of X is not right or wrong; but slavery of X is counter to my intentions if I wanted to most satisfy my own wants within a reasonable period of time. I am less rich, in the satisfaction of all my preferences, because X is a slave. If X wasn’t a slave, perhaps I could be better satisfied.

=> slavery is not justified.

Now, since the subjective preferences that are mine are left unspecified, the general argument hold for any subject qualitatively, only differing quantitatively.

You’re not arguing against rights. Rights are not axiomatic. Nobody has said they are. Life is axiomatic, but the right of life isn’t. Rights are a theory. If rights were axiomatic then there would either be always no criminals or always criminals. Depending on which side of the fence the axiom fell. You’re making a category error.