Rothbards Critique of Hume: (Seek clarification)

[scineram]

@Conza88

@scineram

I meant his latter post when he totally destroyed Casey.

Oh, in that case - please point me in the direction of Fesers potent refutation of Hoppe.

I don’t know if ever criticised argumentation ethics. For that you should see the Liberty symposium for multiple attacks, or Danny’s blog, where he made a very good critique. There was also this discussion, with link to the anti-state forum debates.

[Conza]

@scineram

I don’t know if ever criticised argumentation ethics. For that you should see the Liberty symposium for multiple attacks, or Danny’s blog, where he made a very good critique. There was also this discussion, with link to the anti-state forum debates.

Haha, thanks for that link! [:)]

So, Rothbard confirms what Nirgraham wrote earlier & Rothbard also stated exactly what Adam Knott posted about. lol

I’ll check out the critiques and responses by Hoppe for sure.

[Jon_Irenicus]

If you want reading material on argumentation ethics e-mail Kinsella. I think he’s the main person interested in its defence and elaboration at the moment.

[zefreak]

This excellent post by AJ may be useful to anyone who isn’t aware about the possible (throwing a bone to you Hoppeans) problems with AE.

@AJ

@Hoppe

Arguing is an activity and requires a person’s exclusive control over scarce resources (one’s brain, vocal chords, etc.).

So far so good.

@Hoppe

More specifically, as long as there is argumentation, there is a mutual recognition of each other’s exclusive control over such resources.

Here Hoppe can charitably be interpreted in one of two ways:

1. Recognition = acknowledgment of the fact of “each other’s exclusive control over such resources.”
2. Recognition = acknowledgment of each other’s right of exclusive control over such resources.

@Hoppe

It is this which explains the unique feature of communication: that while one may disagree about what has been said, it is still possible to independently agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement.

Note that this implies Interpretation (1) above, and does not imply Interpretation (2). So far he consistently means (1); no equivocation yet.

@Hoppe

(Lomasky does not seem to dispute this. He claims, however, that it merely proves the fact of mutually exclusive domains of control, not the right of self-ownership. He errs: Whatever - such as the law of contradiction, for instance - must be presupposed insofar as one argues, cannot be meaningfully disputed, because it is the very precondition of meaningful doubt, and hence must be regarded as indisputable, or a priori valid.

This still implies Interpretation (1), and not (2), because at best only the fact of “each other’s exclusive control over such resources” need be presupposed, and only that fact cannot be meaningfully disputed. One could of course meaningfully dispute the right of exclusive control without pressupposing such a right. All that is actually required is presupposition of the fact, not the right. Lomasky may be wrong (or not), but in any case Hoppe must still intend Interpretation (1) here if Hoppe is to be interpreted charitably.

Note that switching to Interpretation (2) without explicit reference to that switch would be a bald equivocation. So far, Hoppe is in the clear.

@Hoppe

In the same vein, the fact of self-ownership is a praxeological precondition of argumentation. Anyone trying to prove or disprove anything must in fact be a self-owner.

If his argument is to coherently follow from what he wrote above, Hoppe must here define “the fact of self-ownership” as “the fact of ‘each other’s exclusive control over such resources’.” And he must define “self-owner” as “one who has ‘exclusive control over such resources’.”

Hoppe still clearly means Interpretation (1) above. Still no equivocation.

@Hoppe

It is a self-contradictory absurdity then to ask for any further-reaching justification for this fact. Required, of necessity, by all meaningful argumentation, self-ownership is an absolutely and ultimately justified fact.)

From above, all Hoppe is saying here is, “each other’s exclusive control over such resources” is an absolutely and ultimately justified fact. But the dear reader will note that this statement - taken at face value - does not imply Hoppe’s argumentation ethics (right to exclusive control), only argumentation facts (fact of exclusive control).

No, for Hoppe’s purposes, the sentence will have to carry the implication that “the right of self-ownership is an absolutely and ultimately justified fact.” Sadly, Hoppe can only achieve this by pulling the old switcheroo, by equivocating between Interpretation (1) and Interpretation (2).

[nirgrahamUK]

sigh

David Osterfeld on natural rights

in fact, he is not switchign from 1 to 2, but everywhere using 2. because argumentation is something different from two tape machines with different ‘arguments’(sic) loaded in set up to sound off with each other in a room. there are norms to argumentation. its called the apriori of argumentation Frank van Dun, The key to understanding the argument from argumentation is, first, that when they are told or asked (not) to believe, say, or do something people are likely and in fact entitled to qu…

[laminustacitus]

@Conza88

@scineram

I meant his latter post when he totally destroyed Casey.

Oh, in that case - please point me in the direction of Fesers potent refutation of Hoppe.

Pass the buck as much as you want, but Feser utterly destroyed Rothbard’s version of self ownership.

[Conza]

What? No link? That’s unfortunate.

@laminustacitus

Passed the buck

[zefreak]

@nirgrahamUK

sigh

David Osterfeld on natural rights - #60 by nirgrahamUK

If Hoppe is everywhere and always using definition #2, the assertion “More specifically, as long as there is argumentation, there is a mutual recognition of each other’s exclusive control over such resources.” is no longer true.

[nirgrahamUK]

@zefreak

If Hoppe is everywhere and always using definition #2, the assertion “More specifically, as long as there is argumentation, there is a mutual recognition of each other’s exclusive control over such resources.” is no longer true.

no, if you do not recognize my right to myself i cease to be a party to the rational argumentation with you, and become just another wall you are talking at and maybe you will knock down if you think you might prefer the view

[scineram]

Nonsense. We are arguing despite me rejecting your self ownership.

[Snowflake]

@Adam Knott

3. Therefore, one ought to build a rock house

Err… the hidden assumption you’re making is that “outlast” means “good”

These definitions are not equivalent, so the conclusion does not follow…

[laminustacitus]

@Conza88

What? No link? That’s unfortunate.

@laminustacitus

Passed the buck

I need not to link anything, I just stated a fact that Feser demolished Rothbard’s thesis on self-ownership. If are speaking of Feser having not done what I asset he did, it would already mean that you have read what Feser had to say; ergo, I would not need to give you any links because you have already read them. But, if I am wrong, and you have not read Feser’s reply to Rothbard, then reply to this, and I will give you the links along with a witty quip about actually reading the material before creating an opinion about it.

[twistedbydsign99]

@zefreak

Correct. It is a factual statement, as the definition of action is purposeful behavior, IE behavior with a given end. The question is can you deduce any sort of value statement from the axiom? No, because the action axiom simply elucidates how people will act, not how they should. Therefore the previous syllogism I constructed still requires the 3rd (ought) premise to deduce the conclusion, as the conclusion isn’t that zefreak will cease posting in the thread but that zefreak ought to cease posting in the thread.

Deduce value from the axiom? No, but in combination with what I said earlier it does make the consequentialist framework of morality valid. Because a human being will act towards his desired goals, it is undeniable that there is a way he should act, or moral code he should live by to best achieve them. I already stated that the goals/values themselves, might not be derivable from what is.

[twistedbydsign99]

@GilesStratton

Shit, guys, you’d never guess what happened to me.

To cut a long story short, this socialist and I were having a debate about the ethics of the state. Anyway, the statist pig was going on about how he has the right to make me work for money to help the poor etc. when I pointed out that I had self ownership. So he started trying to refute it when he begin choking up, shortly after his eyes were rolling around and he’d pretty much turned purple before he dropped to the floor dead.

Anyway, I went to the hospital to asked what was happening and the doctor pointed out that it was actually death by perfomative contradiction. Seriously, I never would have imagined anything as crazy at that.

Turns out Hoppe was right.

Haha.

[zefreak]

@scineram

Nonsense. We are arguing despite me rejecting your self ownership.

He’s obviously using a special, natural rights definition of argument.

[Conza]

@laminustacitus

@Conza88

What? No link? That’s unfortunate.

@laminustacitus

Passed the buck

I need not to link anything, I just stated a fact that Feser demolished Rothbard’s thesis on self-ownership. If are speaking of Feser having not done what I asset he did, it would already mean that you have read what Feser had to say; ergo, I would not need to give you any links because you have already read them. But, if I am wrong, and you have not read Feser’s reply to Rothbard, then reply to this, and I will give you the links along with a witty quip about actually reading the material before creating an opinion about it.

Read it. Read Casey. Read the responses. The non existent link, was in reference to the non existent refutation of Hoppe or argumentation ethics by Feser. Let me know if it ever arrives. Cheers.

[laminustacitus]

@Conza88

@laminustacitus

@Conza88

What? No link? That’s unfortunate.

@laminustacitus

Passed the buck

I need not to link anything, I just stated a fact that Feser demolished Rothbard’s thesis on self-ownership. If are speaking of Feser having not done what I asset he did, it would already mean that you have read what Feser had to say; ergo, I would not need to give you any links because you have already read them. But, if I am wrong, and you have not read Feser’s reply to Rothbard, then reply to this, and I will give you the links along with a witty quip about actually reading the material before creating an opinion about it.

Read it. Read Casey. Read the responses. The non existent link, was in reference to the non existent refutation of Hoppe or argumentation ethics by Feser. Let me know if it ever arrives. Cheers.

The reason why no one bothers to refute Hoppe is that argumentation ethics are terrible and only serve to further sing to the libertarian choir, Feser has replied to Casey multiple times on his blog, and self-ownership is still an unsound theory, as shown by Feser, that continues to hamper libertarianism.

[scineram]

On AE read Donny.

Here is Feser on Rothbardand on self ownership.

[twistedbydsign99]

@scineram

Here is Feser on Rothbardand on self ownership.

“Not so fast. Your right hand is indeed yours, as is your right foot, your right eye, and every other body part you can name. All well and good – and not terribly controversial. But what exactly does that entail? Does it entail that you are entitled to do absolutely anything you want with those body parts, provided you do not infringe the liberty of others? Does it entail that you can even do things that are immoral – on the grounds that since it’s your body, you have the absolute right to abuse it so long as you harm no one else? More to the point, is it strictly axiomatic or self-evident that you can do these things?”

Strawman. Stopped reading.

[liberty_student]

Pap like this,

Therefore, as libertarians we must abandon these arguments and look for new ones, or else risk never being taken seriously by our rivals. (Shahar)

is what academe creates. People who worry about being listened to, enough that they are willing to ignore ideas if they are not well received. A culture that rewards conformity (monopoly) as opposed to the market which rewards creativity and individuality, will always breed this sort of intellectual conservatism and self-censorship.