Obviously he is right. In logic you get conclusions from assumptions. That has nothing to do with praxeology per se
.
Then go ahead and prove what actions he ought to take!.
Libertarianism has as basis the non-agression axiom and homesteading property theory. These are the assumptions. Beliefs, if you want.
And assumptions are exempt from being right or wrong?
-Jon
That answer cannot be proven if meaningful at all.
Then how do you know that your own assumption is right?
-Jon
There are of course, things that can be assumed but can be later shown to be right or wrong based on other assumptions.
The point is, I have yet to see, (in “The Ethics of Liberty” or anywhere else) a clear, convincing logical argument as to why the assumptions underlying libertarianism are necessarily “right,” starting only from statements that are undeniable (such as the reality of human action/human argument). This means that libertarianism is based on unjustified beliefs in certain principles.
Rothbard’s arguments in “The Ethics of Liberty” depend very much, for instance, on the initial assumption that we want an ethical system that applies equally to all human beings (a fine assumption, in my opinion, but hardly shared by all people – and that is the source of all of humanity’s ills).
The key words here are “initial assumption.” What is the justification for this assumption? Why is this a “good” assumption, while assuming the existance of a ruling class is a “bad” assumption. He gives no real justification except to cite two other works (which I have not read - help me out here if anyone has):
If anyone can make such an argument, I would love to hear it. I would love for libertarianism to be a philosophy that follows directly from undenyable statements and logic alone.
However, I don’t think that this is or ever can be the case.
Rothbard never intended to justify any ethical assumptions (except where he showed by way of elimination how ethics contrary to self-ownership are flawed): he left the matter in the hands of other philosophers, such as Aquinas, Henry Veatch &c. I’d add Long and Rasmussen and den Uyl to that mix. Hoppe gives his arguments a formal grounding. I’d suggest reading their works, as well as Jan Narveson’s, and see which convinces you most, if any. But if someone thinks it is fine to coerce others into acting as they will, yet that it is not okay for them to be coerced, or that only some actions may be coerced but not others, the burden of proof is on them to show why this is so, so non-libertarian systems are in an even worse off position, assuming no further argument could be given.
-Jon
But they can’t do it - logic forbids it. So, libertarianism is the only ‘right’ position. I don’t understand why even libertarians keep on looking for convoluted theories to prove/disprove that libertarianism is morally correct.
Just my opinion as newbie at Mises:
Religion is the counterpart or a false twin of any political/economical system.
It is the created foundation which has the function to “lead” the masses, just a second system in the background to collect people in hopeless situations.
Check the first minutes of this movie:
Best Regards
Thomas
I never understood this burden of proof concept. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to convince someone else, not on non-libertarians.
Well, non-libertarians want people to follow their orders. So the burden of proof is on them : why should they be obeyed ?
Nope. They’re making an argument that calls for distinctions that are by no means self-evident (i.e. that even if two actions are identical in all their properties, that one’s moral evaluation of the one should differ from that of the other), so if they want to be taken seriously they ought to provide some arguments for it. The fact that they want to coercively restrict the actions of free individuals, as Juan said, makes it even more necessary that they do.
-Jon