https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzrJvpRlBNmqMmFhODE3NjAtZTFiZS00ZjFiLTk0ODgtZDcwN2UxYTJhOTc1&hl=nl&pli=1
This paper, written by a friend of mine, is a critique of the Hoppean version of argumentation ethics, but by using another form of argumentation ethics (i.e. the one defended by professor Frank van Dun; also a libertarian). The paper also criticizes Murphy and Callahan's famous critique of Hoppe.
Note that Hoppe is compared to Rawls at some point. :p
Fascinating stuf. I'm hoping some of the more bright minds can find time to read and comment.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
If you'll please pass your frind my article, particularly the part on univasilization I belive will answer him fully.
I don't have time to read this now, plus I'm a bit drunk. But I can already tell you your friend is a man after my own heart. Taking Husserl / phenomonolgy seriously ought to be a top priority for Austrian Econ enthusiasts
I just wrote this half drunken rambling post, which may be similar n scope to your friends paper:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/29504.aspx
Either way, I'm excited to read this just via the title, as I think it is a long overdue subject. Does he use the Austrian sociologist Alfred Schutz at all? If not, that is another man who needs more attention as he was a quasi "austrian school" sociologist and a phenomenologist
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Here's a Boetteke article about Don Lavoie and phenomenolgy I just remembered that some may find interesting
http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2007/10/rush-to-philoso.html?cid=6a00d83451eb0069e200e54ef2e4738833#comment-6a00d83451eb0069e200e54ef2e4738833
It seems Schutz and Lavoie may be very fertile grounds
I read the OP paper and skimmed the second posters. The main issue with the OP is argument that everyone must assert they have rights based upon their rationality. I could argue my rights depend upon my superior style and aesthetic taste. Now it is the case can only argue this in language but my existence does not depend on language. Consequently the universalisability criterion does not necessarily apply in this case.
A note on Husserl, although his analysis seems interesting imbibing the essence of an object without interpreting it seems at least odd- I hold that man has imagination as well as reason where the former is the epistemology of the aesthetic and is more intuitive I wouldn't deny that kind of intuition is devoid of analgous presuppostions.
The problem with all the argumentation ethics is that they need a broader moral philosophic base which implies an overall framework of everything- metaphysics (Truth), ethics (Goodness) and aesthetics (Beauty (I count epistemology as a method of discovering these irreducible essences (used in a loose sense)
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat