No. It’s the possibility qua possibility of argumentation between them.
Yes, but then it would fail the test of ethics (universality). This is no better than saying some laws are for some men only, which contradicts the meaning of the word law.
Self-ownership is established through argument, not speech. Simply yelling orders at someone is not an argument. An argument implies that you are trying to convince others of the truth of your statement.
No idea. Just saying – an argument between a slave-owner and a slave should be impossible under argumentation ethics.
Z.
Non sequitur.
then why go on without reading the material yourself, listening to those that have, developing an idea, and providing an argument that is relevent?
Why bother… when everything is subjective. AAhhhh right? [N] lol
It’s an exercise in self-control, not necessarily in self-ownership. This observation should pique curiosity that something is odd here, but in fact what seems like an error I am pointing out is not necessarily one. For anyone interested in following along, below I demonstrate that the issue of whether Hoppe’s AE is a valid insight, setting aside any other difficulties it may have, would ultimately hinge on whether objective ethics make any sense or not.
What is going on in Stranger’s sentence above becomes illustratively clearer once we unpack the terms: “own X” = “objectively ought to control X (exclusively)”. Plugging in to the above, we get two subtly but critically different possible interpretations:
A. The statement that one objectively ought not have exclusive control over his body is impossible, since the very act of making this argument is an exercise in self-ownership.
In other words, “You propose an ethic against self-ownership, but that is self-defeating because you’re then saying you ought not have the exclusive control over your body that enables you to freely make this statement.” That could seriously undermine your attempt to credibly advocate advocate an objective ethic of non-self-ownership. People would point out that your words contradict your actions, and who could blame them?
…and in contrast we have…
B. The statement that one merely doesn’t accept the notion that one “objectively ought to” have exclusive control over his body is impossible, since the very act of making this argument is an exercise in self-ownership.
B may seem roughly the same as A, but it isn’t. In A, the person effectively proposes a different objective ethic than self-ownership. Whereas, in B, the person proposes no objective ethic; they merely refuse to accept that objective ethic. Note that that refusal is not itself an objective ethic, but at most a subjective one (if it is even an ethic at all).
In particular, if someone doesn’t accept “objective ethics” as a meaningful concept at all, then one can freely reject self-ownership (which purports to be an objective ethical position) on those grounds without simultaneously advocating a different ethic, and can therefore avoid any contradiction. In other words, one can merely reject (as incoherent) the objective aspect of the objective ethical concept of self-ownership. That is a rejection of the concept, but not a contradiction (performative or otherwise).
Hence Hoppe is in a sense correct when he states that his argument would imply that it is impossible to consistently advocate any (objective) ethic in opposition to self-ownership. If objective ethics is a well-defined concept, then Hoppe may have something big here. However, if objective ethics is ill-defined, then his result cannot be relied o, even though it seems to show that self-ownership is exceptional among ethical theories. Anyone who’s studied mathematics or logic knows that if there is anything ill-defined within a logical system, any result can be proven within that system. Any result at all.
This is why, even if Hoppe’s argumentation ethics were reworked and perfected to successfully answer all the “little” objections people have leveled at it, its validity would still hinge on the validity of the notion of “objective” ethics.
tl;dr: It all comes does to whether you accept “objective” ethics. If you don’t, Hoppe’s theory doesn’t apply to you and your arguments. If you do, Hoppe’s theory may apply to you and your arguments.
If you are exercising self-control in violation of the public ownership of your body, then that is also a performative contradiction.
False dichotomy: self-ownership vs. public ownership
To see the two options more clearly:
“One (objectively) ought to have exclusive control over oneself” vs. “One (objective) ought to NOT have exclusive control over oneself”
The reason that’s a false dichotomy is that there is another option, namely a rejection of objective ethics. This is exactly what is spelled out in my previous post.
AJ, it doesn’t matter
A rejection of ethics is not a foundation for a theory of ethics.
Well, it depends on what you mean by a theory of ethics. Certainly meta-ethical theories are still possible, such as Mises’s utilitarianism.
If you don’t accept accept “objective” ethics, then what statements could you make that would present an argumentative problem (i.e., the necessity of rejection in order to maintain consistency between beliefs and actions) to the person engaging in de-facto self-control?
Certainly if I reject objective ethics I don’t get to claim that anyone is caught in a performative contradiction. But what of it?
you can only control things not own them, and neither could anyone be unjust to you regardless what they do.
isn’t that an individuals circumstance under the tyranny of the proletariat?
I meant within argumentation ethics without referencing objective law. Imo AE is not so much about ethics as it is about performative contradiction… it says advocating involuntary slavery is impossible rather than ethically wrong.
Then it is obviously wrong.
Can you choose “no choice”? It is impossible in that it is 100% irrational. You can say the words but it doesn’t make any sense.
No, it says that arguing for slavery is impossible.