nskinsella:Nirgraham is making great points. You are being disingenuous. Let me ask you flat out: do you respect and recognize my, and Nirg's, rights--or not? If not, then who cares what you think, any more than we care what a robber thinks while robbing us? If you DO -- and I assume you do, if you are posting here--then that means you do, for some reason, value liberal rights over and above aggression, chaos, etc. Right? Now, all the AE argument says is that in argumentation, there is a basis for preferring peace and related norms, over aggression and related norms. Now, you already agree with us that "there is a basis" for preferring one over the other. So how in the world can you attack us for simply saying what *you* already believe? Please explain this, without subterfuge or sneaky tactics. Just answer it directly and honestly, please--because this confounds me.
Proposing a theory, making an argument, proving it, and/or refuting it is not a love-fest. The validity of an argument rests SOLELY in its content and has nothing whatsoever to do with the feelings, beliefs, or circumstances of the agent delivering it. So your questions above are cop-outs and non-sequitur of the highest order for the discussion at hand.
If I haven't been clear enough already, let me explain further the silliness of AE's "proof', and how that silliness -- if left unhindered -- could be used to "prove" any belief and assumption made from anyone, anywhere(!). Argumentation Ethics (and its supporters) merely (a priori) DEFINE "argumentation" as an act that is EXCLUSIVELY performed between self-owned agents (Everything else MUST be a charade, as Nir suggested repeatedly). With this revolutionary definition then AE can "prove" that whoever "argues" must be self-owned, or they cannot "argue" against it without contradiction (because they must be self-owned, according to this revolutionary definition of "argumentation".). So, for the tenth time, using/assuming X to prove X, doesn't prove X. It merely assumes it, and that's ALL it does!
But guess what? It doesn't end there. By arbitrarily defining "argumentation" in a similar fashion (as something exclusively performed by adherents or believers of X) I can use AE to "prove" X where X could be: right to gang rape, right to slave ownership, right to collective ownership of everything, right to universal health care, laws of The Flying Spagetti Monster (TFSM), etc. By using performative contradiction and defining "argumentation" as something EXCLUSIVELY done by adherents/believers/supporters of X no one could possibly "argue" against X without contradicting themselves, thus elevating X to the level of an axiom and a Natural Right or Natural Law of X!
Now if adherents of the Natural Right to Gang Rape, Natural Right to Slave Ownership, Natural Right to Collective Ownership, Natural Right to Universal Health Care, and Natural Laws of The Flying Spagetti Monster all came to the same party with the adherents of Natural Rights of Self-Ownership -- all convinced in the axiomatic, thus natural, objective powers of their beliefs -- how would an "argument" look like when everyone else's "argument" must (axiomatically, and by definition) be a charade!
This is the reason why making revolutionary definitions of "argumentation" is plain silly. Argumentation and logical discourse have existed long before self-ownership and libertarianism were invented as concepts. They are META-concepts in relation to self-ownership and "natural law", as agents (free or otherwise) have been arguing over centuries under feelings, beliefs, and societal structures FAR removed from freedom and liberty. After all, I see many people here define the status-quo as a form of slavery, and yet we argue still.
I hope I made myself clearer.
Now, can we please conclude that AE doesn't PROVE anything, and close this subject once and for all?
Z.
z1235: nskinsella:Nirgraham is making great points. You are being disingenuous. Let me ask you flat out: do you respect and recognize my, and Nirg's, rights--or not? If not, then who cares what you think, any more than we care what a robber thinks while robbing us? If you DO -- and I assume you do, if you are posting here--then that means you do, for some reason, value liberal rights over and above aggression, chaos, etc. Right? Now, all the AE argument says is that in argumentation, there is a basis for preferring peace and related norms, over aggression and related norms. Now, you already agree with us that "there is a basis" for preferring one over the other. So how in the world can you attack us for simply saying what *you* already believe? Please explain this, without subterfuge or sneaky tactics. Just answer it directly and honestly, please--because this confounds me. Proposing a theory, making an argument, proving it, and/or refuting it is not a love-fest. The validity of an argument rests SOLELY in its content and has nothing whatsoever to do with the feelings, beliefs, or circumstances of the agent delivering it. So your questions above are cop-outs and non-sequitur of the highest order for the discussion at hand.
You are just evading the question. I repeat it, not b/c you might answer it--it's clear you are too evasive to do this--but so that others lurking can see that the only way to avoid the logic of AE is to evade these questions. I repeat: you already agree with us that "there is a basis" for preferring one set of norms over the other. So how can you attack us for simply saying what *you* already believe? Please explain.
As for the remainder of your "objections," Hoppe has dispatched most of these already in his four Replies... in the appendix to his Economics & Ethics of Private Property. I dispatched the rest in my Defending Argumentation Ethics.
Stephan Kinsella nskinsella@gmail.com www.StephanKinsella.com
I think everyone here (with the possible exception of Kinsella) should stop and take the time to read up on AE and Discourse Ethics in general, from the little I've read almost all of these objections aren't new and many miss the point of AE entirely.
scineram:It is useful to state for reference the nuke that blows argumentation ethics into oblivion: There is no logical, performative or any contradiction whatsoever in the denial of self-ownership.
There is no logical, performative or any contradiction whatsoever in the denial of self-ownership.
nskinsella:You are just evading the question. I repeat it, not b/c you might answer it--it's clear you are too evasive to do this--but so that others lurking can see that the only way to avoid the logic of AE is to evade these questions.
Alright, I'll take your "bait".
nskinsella:I repeat: you already agree with us that "there is a basis" for preferring one set of norms over the other.
Please explain "there is a basis". Yes, I, just like everyone else, have a personal preference for my own set of norms.
nskinsella:So how can you attack us for simply saying what *you* already believe? Please explain.
I am not attacking anyone. (Argumentation is a manifestation of peaceful behavior, remember?) I am simply stating that AE proves NOTHING. This statement has nothing to do with my or your beliefs. A believer in God is perfectly consistent when stating that no one has proven God's existence. Beliefs are called that exactly BECAUSE they are NOT (nor are they required) to be proven.
nskinsella:As for the remainder of your "objections," Hoppe has dispatched most of these already in his four Replies... in the appendix to his Economics & Ethics of Private Property. I dispatched the rest in my Defending Argumentation Ethics.
I had already read those. There's nothing in there that "dispatches" my refutation. I'm open to dispatching back whatever segments you deem particularly striking.
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."
z1235: nskinsella:You are just evading the question. I repeat it, not b/c you might answer it--it's clear you are too evasive to do this--but so that others lurking can see that the only way to avoid the logic of AE is to evade these questions. Alright, I'll take your "bait". nskinsella:I repeat: you already agree with us that "there is a basis" for preferring one set of norms over the other. Please explain "there is a basis". Yes, I, just like everyone else, have a personal preference for my own set of norms.
Good enough. So, you agree wiht me on libertarian rights. Good.
nskinsella:So how can you attack us for simply saying what *you* already believe? Please explain. I am not attacking anyone. (Argumentation is a manifestation of peaceful behavior, remember?)
I am not attacking anyone. (Argumentation is a manifestation of peaceful behavior, remember?)
THanks for that admission about AE. Good.
I am simply stating that AE proves NOTHING.
Sure. It proves no one can argumentatively justify any ethic contrary to libertarian NAP.
nskinsella:Sure. It proves no one can argumentatively justify any ethic contrary to libertarian NAP.
Interesting. How so?
Juan:Hey z1235 you are both an amoralist and a so called 'miniarchist' ? Or maybe you are a member of the hayek church and think that the state can have even more functions than providing security ?
I prefer not to use labels -- not for myself, not for others. (Note that I never use them nor I refer to them in my posts.) The labels you allow to be slapped on your forehead are tacit permissions for others to speak in your name, and I've seen (and experienced) the drawbacks of that too often in my past. There's that collectivist undertone implied in any label that rubs me the wrong way -- more so, the older I get. So in that light, I would describe myself as merely ME, an extreme individualist, first and foremost -- building a perception of the world around me on my own, one brick at a time. I didn't mean to be evasive. This is the honest truth.
Now since I answered your questions, please give me the courtesy of picking up where we last left off (presented below for your convenience):
nskinsella:It shows that only the NAP is justified, and that any ethic that is contrary to the NAP cannot be justified, siply because justification is argumentative justification, so that any justification has to be compatible with whatever norms are necessarily presupposed in argumentation itself. So the only question, I see it, is whether or not there ARE any norms presupposed in argumentation. If so, what are they? I think there clearly are norms, and they are the grundnorms of libertarianism.
z1235:The only norm ACTUALLY presupposed in argumentation is de facto control of one's head during the length of the argument. There's no need whatsoever to presuppose: (1) exclusive (2) permanent control over that head (much less the rest of the body), nor is there the necessity to presuppose one's (3) right to such control. Argumentation between two heads can go on for a very long time without ANY of the above three AE presuppositions.
Note that (relevant to the above) I define ownership as an "(1) exclusive (3) right to a control over a scarce resource" (Just so we're on the same page).
nskinsella: Re your last sentence: if so, so what? Imagine a world where there "are" "natural rights" (whatever it means for natural rights to "exist"), and that you have a Randian Natural Law Ultimate Proof of them. Or, one handed down by God: the ultimate proof of rights. Still, there will be two classes of people: those who choose (for whatever reason) to respect your rights, and those who choose to violate them. For the former, if you give them your Ultimate Proof, you are preaching to the converted. For the latter, they aer still free to say, "okay, nice proof," and then proceed to bash you in the head. So what is the difference betwwen this type of proof and AE? They are exactly the same in this respect.
So what is the difference betwwen this type of proof and AE? They are exactly the same in this respect.
z1235:No difference. If you presuppose that 2+2=5 is correct in order to prove that 2+3=6 (in a system in which the number X after the '+' sign is really X+1), then that proof would have no meaning whatsoever (or would be utterly wrong!) for the proponents of the system in which the number X after the '+' sign is merely X.
...meaning: Using presuppositions WITHIN "proofs" that are supposed to prove them proves NOTHING.
z, do you understand the reason that denying the law of identity involves a performative contradiction? Now since I'm going to assume you do, how about translating that into what we're talking about. Then you'll no longer have any silly hang-ups.
Frankly we are denying self-ownership, not law of identity.
Knight_of_BAAWA:z, do you understand the reason that denying the law of identity involves a performative contradiction?
"A is A" (law of identity) is the a priori (axiom) of all logic and knowledge. It's not "proven" by performative contradiction, nor by anything else. It just is.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Now since I'm going to assume you do, how about translating that into what we're talking about. Then you'll no longer have any silly hang-ups.
I'm afraid you'll have to show me the steps of how "A is A" helps AE prove anything.
z1235:"A is A" (law of identity) is the a priori (axiom) of all logic and knowledge. It's not "proven" by performative contradiction, nor by anything else. It just is.
"A is A" is, in the language from Höppe's Four Replies, an "a priori true is-statement".
KoB didn't say anything was proven by performative contradiction. He said that you denying the law of identity is a performative contradiction (A is not A). The law of identity is still an a priori true statement.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
scineram:Frankly we are denying self-ownership, not law of identity.
z1235:"A is A" (law of identity) is the a priori (axiom) of all logic and knowledge.
z1235: Juan:Hey z1235 you are both an amoralist and a so called 'miniarchist' ? Or maybe you are a member of the hayek church and think that the state can have even more functions than providing security ? I prefer not to use labels -- not for myself, not for others.
I prefer not to use labels -- not for myself, not for others.
So, you're a non-labeler?
scineram: Frankly we are denying self-ownership, not law of identity.
So you believe in slavery. Just great.
If I do that proves libertarian ethic how?
E. R. Olovetto:KoB didn't say anything was proven by performative contradiction. He said that you denying the law of identity is a performative contradiction (A is not A).
Point to where I denied the law of identity. Even if I did, that would NOT be a performative contradiction, and that would NOT be the "proof" for it.
E. R. Olovetto:The law of identity is still an a priori true statement.
Indeed. So we agree. Now please show me how the a priori (axiomatic) status of "A is A" helps AE prove anything (that is, without arbitrarily claiming axiomatic status for what it supposedly "proves" to begin with).
z1235:I prefer not to use labels -- not for myself, not for others.
nskinsella:So, you're a non-labeler?
Cute, but no cigar. Pay attention. I said "I" prefer not to use labels. I can't stop others from throwing them at me.
I see you're taking a break from your dispatches?
z1235: E. R. Olovetto:KoB didn't say anything was proven by performative contradiction. He said that you denying the law of identity is a performative contradiction (A is not A). Point to where I denied the law of identity. Even if I did, that would NOT be a performative contradiction, and that would NOT be the "proof" for it.
I didn't say that you denied the law of identity. You were discussing "denying it".... I don't see how you can say that denying the law of identity is not a performative contradiction....
You can make the proposition "A is not A" or "A is B" to deny it. This is performative contradiction unless you are telling me I don't know what I am talking about. I think your only other option is to say "The world is just an illusion." or some other nonsense.
E. R. Olovetto: "The world is just an illusion."
"The world is just an illusion."
not even that is an option due to:
world is illusion: A is A
--
This is a logical proposition, but episteme (knowledge) has not been brought into query yet. Epistemology would involve understanding what is A or the knowledge of what A is. That isn't the current line of discussion.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And denying it involves using it, right?
Yes, but THAT is not why "A is A" is an axiom. Denying "A is A + B" ALSO involves using it, but that does NOT make it an axiom. Denying ANYTHING involves using it. Is EVERYTHING, therefore, an axiom?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Same with self-ownership.
Most certainly not.
wilderness: E. R. Olovetto: "The world is just an illusion." not even that is an option due to: world is illusion: A is A -- This is a logical proposition, but episteme has not been brought into query yet. Epistemology would involve what is A. That isn't the current line of discussion.
This is a logical proposition, but episteme has not been brought into query yet. Epistemology would involve what is A. That isn't the current line of discussion.
You're right. What I meant to say was that Z could concoct something to say to try to drag things on, and we could just say, "You're wrong." again, or something.
z1235: z1235:The only norm ACTUALLY presupposed in argumentation is de facto control of one's head during the length of the argument. There's no need whatsoever to presuppose: (1) exclusive (2) permanent control over that head (much less the rest of the body), nor is there the necessity to presuppose one's (3) right to such control. Argumentation between two heads can go on for a very long time without ANY of the above three AE presuppositions. Note that (relevant to the above) I define ownership as an "(1) exclusive (3) right to a control over a scarce resource" (Just so we're on the same page).
I think what he is missing here is what a right is and what it means to argue meaningfully.
Höppe:The second objection suffers from the same misunderstanding of the value-free nature of my defense of private property. Osterfeld agrees that argumentation presupposes the recognition of private property. But then he wonders about the source of this right. Yet how can he raise such a question? Only because he, too, is capable of argumentation. Without argumentation there would be nothing but silence or meaningless noise. The answer is that the source of human rights is, and must be, argumentation as the manifestation of our rationality. It is impossible to claim anything else to be the starting point for the derivation of an ethical system, because claiming so would once again have to presuppose one's argumentative capability. Could rights not be derived from a contract behind a "veil of ignorance," asks Osterfeld? Yes and no. Of course, there can be rights derived from contracts. But in order for a contract to be possible, there must already be private owners and private property, otherwise there would be no physically independent contractors, and nothing to contractually agree upon. And "no": no rights can be derived "from behind a veil of ignorance," because no one lives behind such a thing, except epistemological zombies, and only a Rawlsian zombie ethic can be derived from behind it. Can rights emerge from tradition h la Hume or Burke? Of course, they always do. But the question of the factual emergence of rights has nothing to do with the question of whether or not what exists can be justified.
z1235: Denying ANYTHING involves using it. Is EVERYTHING, therefore, an axiom?
Denying ANYTHING involves using it. Is EVERYTHING, therefore, an axiom?
I deny microwaves and don't use them. So no. You're wrong again.
yeah back in the day in another thread you did and undoubtedly you still think initiating physical aggression is an axiom, but I act, as well as all people act moments where they are NOT initiating physical aggression.
mental and emotional fantasies are not refutations
and if there are aliens on plant zeno first you need to prove that.
E. R. Olovetto: I didn't say that you denied the law of identity. You were discussing "denying it".... I don't see how you can say that denying the law of identity is not a performative contradiction.... You can make the proposition "A is not A" or "A is B" to deny it. This is performative contradiction unless you are telling me I don't know what I am talking about. I think your only other option is to say "The world is just an illusion." or some other nonsense.
Performative contradiction is only ONE (though quite profusely abused in this neck of the woods) approach of proving something. It differs from OTHER types of proofs by requiring that the very ACT of denying the proposition under consideration PROVES the proposition itself. Someone proclaiming "I don't exist!" proves his existence by merely stating it, and THAT is a performative contradiction. Someone stating "A is not A" is NOT what proves the validity for "A is A", as the ACT of stating the opposite is NOT what's contradicting it -- hence it's NOT a performative contradiction. Do you see the difference?
Now you can argue that self-ownership is axiomatic just "because" (just like "A is A", period), but you cannot claim that it gains that status through performative contradiction because no ACT of denying self-ownership contradicts self-ownership -- not by a long shot.
z1235:Denying ANYTHING involves using it. Is EVERYTHING, therefore, an axiom?
wilderness:I deny microwaves and don't use them.
You just did.
z1235: z1235:Denying ANYTHING involves using it. Is EVERYTHING, therefore, an axiom? wilderness:I deny microwaves and don't use them. You just did.
This isn't a microwave. This is a computer. really? has this hit a new low?
E. R. Olovetto: What does objective ethics and objective rights mean? I honestly do not understand what you mean at all and I hear these phrases repeated here so often. Please someone, anyone, give me a tight definition so there will be no confusion what you are talking about with these two phrases.
What does objective ethics and objective rights mean? I honestly do not understand what you mean at all and I hear these phrases repeated here so often.
Please someone, anyone, give me a tight definition so there will be no confusion what you are talking about with these two phrases.
objective ethics/morality, not to be confused with Objective ethics, defines the way men should act external to mans mind, similar to a physical law. There are a few qualities attributed to it, but generally understanding it as a thing external to any one man is the best way to conceive of it. I have no idea what a right is in general usage, I believe it it just a rewording of morality.
twistedbydsign99:objective ethics/morality, not to be confused with Objective ethics, defines the way men should act external to mans mind, similar to a physical law.
How is that similar to a physical law?
z1235:no ACT of denying self-ownership contradicts self-ownership -- not by a long shot.
Thats incorrect. Any act affirms the "fact" of self ownership. If you use your vocal cords to exclaim you don't own yourself, you have contradicted yourself in fact. That is to say you have control of your vocal chords, and likewise you can show control over many other faculties of your body in a similar manner. This is just the fact of ownership. You are hung up because you are conflating the fact of ownership with the principle of ownership. The principle of ownership is SHOULD you own your body, not do you. And as I've asked if you are denying the principle of self ownership, I would like to know who in fact SHOULD own you?
wilderness:This isn't a microwave. This is a computer.
There, you used the word you denied again.
Wilderness, this is not the first time that you and I have concluded that we speak different languages. (I feel as if you speak Klingon, most of the time.) If you consistently don't understand (or don't want to understand) what I am saying, then simply stop responding to my posts. Please s**t (i.e. show how the above line of inquiry is relevant to the discussion in this thread) or get off the pot.
twistedbydsign99:Thats incorrect. Any act affirms the "fact" of self ownership. If you use your vocal cords to exclaim you don't own yourself, you have contradicted yourself in fact. That is to say you have control of your vocal chords, and likewise you can show control over many other faculties of your body in a similar manner. This is just the fact of ownership. You are hung up because you are conflating the fact of ownership with the principle of ownership. The principle of ownership is SHOULD you own your body, not do you. And as I've asked if you are denying the principle of self ownership, I would like to know who in fact SHOULD own you?
Control over a scarce resource now, does NOT imply the RIGHT to such control (ownership) now, in the past, or in the future. The FACT of you riding (controlling) a bicycle now does NOT imply your RIGHT to such control (ownership) of it now, in the past, or in the future. For example, you could've simply stolen it -- and this is only ONE of infinite scenarios by which you have acquired such control now. In other words: The FACT OF CONTROL of a scarce resource does NOT imply the exclusive RIGHT to such control (i.e. ownership).
For an example from ALL possible norms consider a norm by which parents OWN their child (free and clear) until the child wins a chess game against either one of them. No proponent of this norm would be performatively contradicting themselves by the ACT of arguing for it (i.e. against self-ownership).
Juan:Z, I don't think asking what's your political position means I'm a collectivist labeler or anything close to it. I didn't read all your posts but I think in a previous discussion you were trying to prove that a stateless society is not possible, that the concept is flawed, or something along those lines.
I never attempted to PROVE such a thing. I was merely expressing my opinion.
Juan:I believe then that asking what political system you favor is a fair question and doesn't involve any useless 'labeling'. I would also like to know how is your political system justified since apparently you don't believe in natural rights.
I also think it's a fair question but it's not relevant for the current discussion, so I kindly ask you not to digress. My, or anyone else's beliefs, SHOULD have no relevance to the arguments anyone's making in this thread, or to whether a proposition is proven or not. A "proof" that is belief-dependent is no proof.
Finally, please make the distinction between (1) my assertion that there is no proof for a certain norm/belief and (2) my possible preference for there to be one (or my personal preference for such a norm/belief). These two things don't necessarily have to collide.
z1235:For an example from ALL possible norms consider a norm by which parents OWN their child (free and clear) until the child wins a chess game against either one of them. No proponent of this norm would be performatively contradicting themselves by the ACT of arguing for it (i.e. against self-ownership).
Then start at this point. Should you own yourself? If you should then it is contradictory to say that you shouldn't. I say you should, there is no more a deserving owner than you, the current ghost in the machine.
twistedbydsign99: z1235:For an example from ALL possible norms consider a norm by which parents OWN their child (free and clear) until the child wins a chess game against either one of them. No proponent of this norm would be performatively contradicting themselves by the ACT of arguing for it (i.e. against self-ownership). Then start at this point. Should you own yourself? If you should then it is contradictory to say that you shouldn't. I say you should, there is no more a deserving owner than you, the current ghost in the machine.
Non sequitur. What you or I believe (or say) that should or shouldn't be (or what is or isn't deserved) bears no relevance to the non-existence of the proof. My parents (or any proponents of the above norm) would beg to differ, that is, until I win that darn chess game.
z1235: Non sequitur. What you or I believe (or say) that should or shouldn't be (or what is or isn't deserved) bears no relevance to the non-existence of the proof. My parents (or any proponents of the above norm) would beg to differ, that is, until I win that darn chess game. Z.
What you and I believe are of utmost importance. If we want to objectively answer the question of who should own you, if not what we believe, then what method?