Mises ill-definition of Natural Law, why?

[Lilburne]

@wilderness

Lilburne,

No. We haven’t even gotten to any deductions yet. Again (1) you don’t know what deductions mean (2) don’t know what axioms mean (3) are simply avoiding this on purpose. I am using “Intro. to Logic” books. This is all very basic 101 logic. That quote isn’t even close to discussing what an ‘axiom’ is. All Rothbard would be saying in that quote is Hoppe by using axioms then uses a deductive method to come to certain conclusions. But Hoppe’s argumentation ethics starts with the axioms that are pre-supposed by each person in the argument before any deduction need be even made. Plenty of literature on this at the Mises Institute.

Hoppe attempts to deduce that private property ethics can’t be argued against from the definition of argumentation. Argumentation ethics is indeed deductive.