Pragmatarianism Disproved: An Essay

Miscellaneous General
21

“Yeah, well we’re Rothbardians, not Misesians, we believe that the is/ought dichotomy is false.”

Rothbard [Beyond Is and Ought] accepted Hoppe’s breakthrough with great enthusiaism.

…In order to come to a policy conclusion, I have long maintained, economists have to come up with some kind of ethical system. Note that all branches of modern “welfare economics” have attempted to do just that: to continue to be “scientific” and therefore value-free, and yet to make all sorts of cherished policy pronouncements (since most economists would like at some point to get beyond their mathematical models and draw politically relevant conclusions). Most economists would not be caught dead with an ethical system or principle, believing that this would detract from their “scientific” status.

And yet, remarkably and extraordinarily, Hans Hoppe has proven me wrong. He has done it: he has deduced an anarcho-Lockean rights ethic from self-evident axioms. Not only that: he has demonstrated that, just like the action axiom itself, it is impossible to deny or disagree with the anarcho-Lockean rights ethic without falling immediately into self-contradiction and self-refutation…

"Here the praxeological proof of libertarianism has the advantage of offering a completely value-free justification of private property. It remains entirely in the realm of is-statements and never tries to derive an “ought” from an “is.” – HHH, Economics and ethics of private property, p345

So it’s wiser to accept the dichotomy.

Anyway, I applaud the effort to write on essay on this… not that it’s going to change the guys opinions and activism. He delusionally thinks he is offering the ‘new third way’.

22

Conza, that’s interesting, for sure. Thanks for the quotes and information. I will say, I definitely concur with Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, in addition to the Rothbardian vision of Natural Law; I’m unsure whether I agree with the concept of the is/ought dichotomy, as I remember seeing a thread where Rothbard disproved it in one of his books. At any rate, I accept its possibility as feasible (though I’m a sceptic about it), and it is something which I shall certainly have to ponder in the future. Thanks! And thanks for your kind words on the essay too; I appreciate it. Yeah, it’s not necessarily going to change his mind, but perhaps at least it will introduce him to some new concepts; and, ideally, it will serve to prevent any others from being fooled by Pragmatarianism. (Not sure if anyone has been). It was a funny coincidence that your example of the Nazi Pragma-Concentration Camps coincided with my example of the Pragma-Gulag…I saw your alternate idea on the RP forums. =)

Anyone feel absolutely 100% free to quote from our work if you get in discussion with him.

Merlin, I concur with you, that’s one of the basic issues at work here: surpluses and shortages in accordance with Mises’ economic calculation problem. Pragmatarianism is not even a Libertarian ideology, as the Gulag and 100% tax hypotheticals demonstrate clearly. Read the bit on Pragma-Nihilism (my name for the philosophy) at the bottom if you want to see my opinions on the disastrous moral implications of his beliefs. He truly doesn’t care–at all–about the infringement of Natural Rights and libertarian ethic. So I don’t see why he expects acceptance from a Libertarian crowd. Even Utilitarians can smell the BS. But, I will say, the BS comes from his application of pragmatarianism as an end, rather than as a potential mean. The thing is, if he wants to take a valourous way out, he can still salvage that aspect of his ideology as a means for Libertarianism, which I give a degree of support to. Not that he would do this: he’ll probably continue absurdly advocating his solution as an ultimate end, in CONFLICT with the people who he is trying to get to accept his allegedly “pragmatic” final solution.

So, anyway guys, maybe this is asking too much, but I’d definitely be interested in any criticism, or–what I’d really appreciate–is any promotion of our very new blog and its first essay. (Sorry if that sounds like an ad, ha, but it’s not as blatant as certain Xerographicas). Anyway, I’m sure Josh and I made some errors in there you guys can point out (ooh, we accept some “pragmatarian” fallibilism), and I’m sure you guys have youtube channels/blogs/twitter accounts by which you could give this a quick share. Which I’d really appreciate if possible. I’d also appreciate any first subsriptions to our blog. We plan on publishing more high quality essays in the future: that’s our primary style, after all. So, anyway, thanks if you help out!

23

Just as an update, if anyone is interested.

In response to another thread about this essay elsewhere on the internet, Xerographica has to say: “Woah! Great job guys! As I mentioned in my thread on Strategy Suggestions…the more blogs the better. Especially when they discuss Hayek’s partial knowledge concept and Bastiat’s opportunity cost concept. The essay on pragmatarianism was quite excellent! I’m going to get started on my response.”

At any rate, I will say I have grown to appreciate and respect Xerographica’s undying positivity and enthusiasm. This is balanced out by his vices, like obstinancy and persistence in the face of overwhelming evidence, of course, but you should see my point. Without him and his positive annoyance, we’d have never started a blog to begin with.

24

New update: Evidently there has already been a response released:

Here’s my response…pragmatarianism disproved?

On first glance, he didn’t address any of our argumentation. All we’ll have to do is defend our choice of theoretical tax rate. Easy stuff, or should be.