Recently on the Mises.org blog Stephan Kinsella linked to Adam Knott's 72-page book of this title. I reply to it below, editing out some trivial comments.
On page 18, you posit a fractional-reserve bank in which "each of the bank's customers is aware" that "by agreement of all concerned" depositor's claims on their assets "may increase or decrease in value." You then quote Rothbard who addresses a bank beginning "with 100 percent reserves" whose operators "shrewdly and keenly" see that "only a certain proportion of these demand liabilities were likely to be redeemed" and who thus lend out their reserves in the same manner that a company embezzler does when he "takes money out of the company till to invest in some ventures of his own."
Rothbard may still oppose your voluntary fractional-reserve bank -- indeed, I think he does -- but you do not show that he does, and you certainly do not show that he vilifies nonaggressive actors.
"A conflict is only possible if goods are scarce." This foundational proposition is patently false as conflicts can easily arise over insults, lies, and simple assault
Dishonesty is one of the most important and recognizable of all ethical phenomena
If I say aloud "I am not talking," then what is contradictory in my doing so is to be found by making explicit the implicit conceptual meaning of my statement: "I who am talking, am not talking." This is a simple logical contradiction.
Very good: we are now equipped to translate any alleged performative contradiction into a logical contradiction. It is clear that 'performative contradiction' is just a useful shorthand, then, that need not concern people who are initially struck by the perceived and unpleasant suggestion that there are contradictions in nature.
But then you go on to keep talking about performative contradiction, and seem even to forget your own realization:
When person A says aloud "I am not talking," person A could by lying (though perhaps badly), or joking, or intending to mean that he was not the one who has been talking, or practicing for a play, or listening to the sound of his own voice, etc.
all ethical theory is an attempt to establish a connection between a particular ethical act and an incontestable result or consequence to that act. [...] Thus, one proposing a nonprivate-property ethic may do so, and suffer no necessary consequences according to argumentation ethics.
Hoppe never allows that a brick will necessarily fall upon the head of the person who argues that nobody should own property, but he does establish that such as "I can just take your things when I please" cannot be argued except through logical contradiction. Thus a particular 'ethical act' cannot possibly be justified through argument -- which is to say, it cannot be justified at all. The point of the ethical theory is that it allows me to say that a particular act is (Hoppe:) unjustifable or (Rothbard:) right-violating.
So what you say you want with your definition of 'ethical theory' is not what they even say that they are offering. Instead, both of them use economics for your purpose, Hoppe most expressly in his The Justice of Economic Efficiency (pdf, 12 pages).
I still don't get how can a bank possibly make any money if it cannot have any money available to lend because it must hold 100% of its deposits as reserve under a full reserve system.
Art transcends ideology.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/ruben
I’m not sure Hoppe’s theory is being accurately portrayed here. I would refer the reader to Hoppe’s presentation of his theory in chapter 10 of The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, first edition. The two paragraphs in question are on page 204, beginning with “I want to…” and on page 205, first paragraph, beginning with the words: “Yet if this is so…”
Hoppe is saying that one cannot justify an ethical proposition or proposal other than by argumentative means. And that the libertarian private property ethic is the only one that can be argumentatively justified without contradiction.
In these paragraphs, the words and phrases: “in violation of demonstrated preference,” “contradict,” “belied by,” “falsified,” “contradicting,” “logically incompatible,” and “incompatibility,” (listed here in the order in which they appear) are all meant to convey that there is some kind of fundamental contradiction occurring when one proposes a non-libertarian ethic during the course of argumentation. I believe Hoppe refers to this type of contradiction generally as a “performative contradiction.”
The point isn’t that people cannot offer any justification for their ethical proposals, because a justification is simply a reason, explanation, or defense. Thus, anyone can offer a justification. The point is that non-libertarian justifications proposed during argumentation are thus falsified, as to argue against the libertarian property ethic is to performatively contradict oneself.
My critique addresses this interpretation of Hoppe’s theory, which I believe is both fair and accurate.
"It would be preposterous to assert apodictically that science will never succeed in developing a praxeological aprioristic doctrine of political organization..." (Mises, UF, p.98)
Rubén: I still don't get how can a bank possibly make any money if it cannot have any money available to lend because it must hold 100% of its deposits as reserve under a full reserve system.
How do storage companies stay in business? They don't seem to be lending out the stuff you put in there in order to turn a profit.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
The first is really a premise. The second is indeed what Hoppe argues, and he indeed argues it with the device of 'performative contradiction', which you object to ("there are no contradictions in nature") and dispose of ("This is a simple logical contradiction.") in the paragraph I quote above.
I think the premise isn't emphasized enough in these discussions. Hoppe says
Only with argumentation does the idea of validity and truth emerge and by no means only the idea of truth in ethical matters but of truth in general. Only within argumentation are truth claims of any kind made, and it is only in the course of argumentation that truth claims are decided.
a justification is simply a reason, explanation, or defense.
My critique addresses this interpretation of Hoppe's theory
No, it does not. Your critique has these sections:
So, I'll say again: what you say you want with your definition of 'ethical theory' is not what they even say that they are offering.
Praxeology & Ethics -- Adam Knott: But though coercion and dishonesty are the two most important ethical values preventing libertarianism (and in this sense two ethical values opposed to libertarianism), neither Rand nor Rothbard nor any of their followers will maintain that coercion and dishonesty should be avoided absolutely. Rather, they will maintain that a libertarian is justified in adopting these ethical values as means towards various ends—primarily (but not exclusively) towards the end of establishing and maintaining a libertarian society.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
There are two legal ways.
1.) Charge service fees for depositing money, like a storage facility charges you a fee if you store whatever stuff there
2.) Lend out those deposits where there is an agreement that the money is deposited for a fixed period and the bank might use it to lend to third parties.
The issue you do not seem to get is that 100% reserve means that you need 100% reserve of what you declare as redeemable at any time.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)