z1235: nskinsella:Thanks, and I'm afraid it is my sad duty to inform you that this very attitude--agreeing to disagree--is further support of Hoppe's argumentation ethics. Don't be sad. Support for AE was never denied. But proofs don't need support. They either exist or they don't. Lacking a proof for anything, AE could certainly use all the support it can muster.
nskinsella:Thanks, and I'm afraid it is my sad duty to inform you that this very attitude--agreeing to disagree--is further support of Hoppe's argumentation ethics.
Don't be sad. Support for AE was never denied. But proofs don't need support. They either exist or they don't. Lacking a proof for anything, AE could certainly use all the support it can muster.
As for those who mindlessly say, "but all you have proven is that you can't argumentatively justify socialist ethics," I reply with a quote from HOppe's EEPP:
http://mises.org/books/economicsethics.pdf (pp. 407-08):
The reaction from the other Randian side, represented by Rasmussen, is different. He has fewer difficulties recognizing the nature of my argument but then asks me in turn “So what? Why should an a priori proof of the libertarian property theory make any difference? Why not engage in aggression anyway?” Why indeed?! But then, why should the proof that 1+1=2 make any difference? One certainly can still act on the belief that 1+1=3. The obvious answer is “because a propositional justification exists for doing one thing, but not for doing another.” But why should we be reasonable, is the next come-back. Again, the answer is obvious. For one, because it would be impossible to argue against it; and further, because the proponent raising this question would already affirm the use of reason in his act of questioning it. This still might not suffice and everyone knows that it would not, for even if the libertarian ethic and argumentative reasoning must be regarded as ultimately justified, this still does not preclude that people will act on the basis of unjustified beliefs either because they don’t know, they don’t care, or they prefer not to know. I fail to see why this should be surprising or make the proof somehow defective. More than this cannot be done by propositional argument.
The hypocritical, petulant critics of AE are demanding more than this. they are demanding that they be shown why they should believe what they already do. They are stamping their feet, demanding that you make the proof a causal law, that you make scientism and monism real, before they accept it.
Stephan Kinsella nskinsella@gmail.com www.StephanKinsella.com
nskinsella:"but all you have proven is that you can't argumentatively justify socialist ethics,"
To the contrary, we disproved that supposed proof.
So you say, but you never showed that you did.
nirgrahamUK:I'm curious AJ, where do you sit along the spectrum between myself and Z on the narrow topic of 'rational argumentation' vs. 'charades thereof' ?
I agree that speaking loosely there is a difference between rational argumentation and charades thereof, but Hoppe is not purporting to speak loosely; he is purporting to present a rigorous proof. Until clearly defined, "charade" is just a weasel word. Adherence to rigorous definitions is not optional when attempting a rigorous proof. As Lilburne once put it, "Live by the word-fu, die by the word-fu."
Why anarchy fails
what is loose about it? two people fist-fighting in a pub about which is the superior baseball team are engaging in a charade of argumentation whilst two men sat civilized at the bar debating the merits and demerits of either team are rational arguing (they obey norms the fist fighters ignore)
where is the 'weasel' ?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Giving examples is good enough for an intuitive grasp of the concept, but it doesn't constitute a definition rigorous enough for logical proof purposes. It's not that I think you can't clearly define charades; it's that the game (of seeing whether the proof pans out) doesn't begin until that definition is crystallized.
do you simply mean that you don't trust yourself to distinguish charades from rational argument sufficiently so as to give AE a good go ?
nirgrahamUK: what is loose about it? two people fist-fighting in a pub about which is the superior baseball team are engaging in a charade of argumentation whilst two men sat civilized at the bar debating the merits and demerits of either team are rational arguing (they obey norms the fist fighters ignore)
None of whom are necessarily self-owners however.
scineram: None of whom are necessarily self-owners however.
too lazy to actually examine the cases and follow the argument you jump to a conclusion.
Who knows? Their wives? Or parents?
Hot off the presses!
WRITING ETHICS (copyright z1235)
A new and much improved proof (vs Argumentation Ethics) for the right to self-ownership and property acquisition via homesteading -- only requiring ONE agent being caught in a performative contradiction vs. AE's two!
No one can write anything that denies self-ownership (and property acquisition via homesteading) without contradicting themselves -- for how could possibly anyone be writing (as opposed to merely pretending to do so, i.e. performing a charade) if they didn't own themselves? In addition, in order for someone to be writing at all they would have to be alive, and for that they would have to be owning some property (right to exclusive control of scarce resources) in order to sustain themselves (food, shelter, etc.). And how else could they have possibly acquired this property if not by homesteading (mixing their labor)? The above described performative contradiction raises the right to self-ownership and property acquisition through homesteading to an axiomatic status. Q.E.D.
Coming soon: THINKING ETHICS, SINGING ETHICS, and SULKING ETHICS!
Z.
Hoppe:Let me start by asking what is wrong with the position taken by Mises and so many others that the choice between values is ultimately arbitrary? First, it should be noted that such a position assumes that at least the question of whether or not value judgments or normative statements can be justified is itself a cognitive problem.
This does not follow if "justified" is not defined in a meaningful way with respect to "normative statements." Until it is, we cannot know whether Hoppe's statement contains a contradiction, in which case it would fall prey to the principle of explosion. I do not see why Hoppe couldn't have used a word with a less wide array of possible interpretations, especially if clarity is his aim.Since the rest of that quote is based entirely on this initial ambiguity, it cannot be examined charitably at this time.
Stephen:There is an enormous body of literature on this topic which covers everything. Negative demonstration is nothing new. I don't understand why people have such a negative reaction when it is applied to ethics.
Once again, the heart of the problem is the definitions. I think clarifying the definitions will make all such arguments fall apart.If Hoppe were really trying to construct a proof he would have been more careful to define his terms clearly. By being unclear and ambiguous with wording, any theorist can forever dodge decisive criticism. This is a familiar situation to all who've studied Marxism: "Workers are being exploited" relies on a special definition of exploitation. Clarifying definitions makes the labor theory of value evaporate, just as it does with the proof of argumentation ethics. Regardless of how enormous the body of literature is on this subject, if there is nowhere a clear statement of definitions then it's worse than useless and, in my opinion, it reflects poorly on libertarian scholarship.
Regardless of how enormous the body of literature is on this subject, if there is nowhere a clear statement of definitions then it's worse than useless and, in my opinion, it reflects poorly on libertarian scholarship.
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."
Juan:...you should define ALL the words you use.
I'm not the one claiming to present a logical proof.
What terms of mine do you find unclear?
scineram:Who knows?
z1235:Hot off the presses!
AJ:This does not follow if "justified" is not defined in a meaningful way with respect to "normative statements."
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes, one does wonder how you're writing if you don't own yourself.
Would you agree, then, that my Writing Ethics proof is better than (or at least as good as) the Argumentation Ethics' proof? Wait till you hear my Singing Ethics proof.
z1235:Would you agree, then, that my Writing Ethics proof is better than (or at least as good as) the Argumentation Ethics' proof?
Knight_of_BAAWA:I think you're not grasping that writing, talking, and singing are all subsumed in a larger concept.
...or, perhaps, you are trying to refute my Writing Ethics proof? It would help my grasp better if you decided between the two.
Knight_of_BAAWA: z1235:Hot off the presses!Yes, one does wonder how you're writing if you don't own yourself.
Maybe his owner allowed him or even ordered to write. Or he could be violating his ownership, trespassing on his property for all we know.
AJ,
thanks for dialoguing and proving AE. yet again.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Hoppe:Let me start by asking what is wrong with the position taken by Mises and so many others that the choice between values is ultimately arbitrary? First, it should be noted that such a position assumes that at least the question of whether or not value judgments or normative statements can be justified is itself a cognitive problem. AJ:This does not follow if "justified" is not defined in a meaningful way with respect to "normative statements."But it is so defined; logically objectively universally justified.
Thank you, that is a good measure clearer. I understand that it may seem that I am trying to evade by asking for precise definitions, so I will attempt to demonstrate at least one aspect in which I cannot discern a clear meaning from the words. I present the following in all sincerity, and welcome correction of anything I misinterpreted:
When I usually think of the words "right" or "wrong," there seems to be a purpose implied: "It's right for that purpose." I am also of course familiar with exchanges like, "Why is it wrong? It just is. It's just wrong." But I have never been clear on the exact intent of people who speak this way. In fact, they seem to have a variety of possible intents, depending on the speaker and the situation.
Now, when we speak of a normative statement (statement about what is right and what is wrong) being "logically objectively universally justified," the words universal and objective both appear to imply that there is no purpose meant to be associated with the statement about right and wrong. If there is a purpose, specifying what that purpose is would make things much clearer. If there is no purpose, then I can't comprehend the meaning, for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph.
That is one reason I think the term "justified" is unclear, as is even "logically objectively universally justified," with respect to normative statements. I hope it's apparent that this is not just semantic nitpicking. I really don't see what right and wrong mean unless there is a purpose behind them. Because of that, what it would really mean to "justify" something as being right or wrong escapes me.
thanks for dialoguing, again, and proving AE.
z1235:...or, perhaps, you are trying to refute my Writing Ethics proof?
scineram:Maybe his owner allowed him or even ordered to write.
AJ:What terms of mine do you find unclear?
Knight_of_BAAWA: scineram:Maybe his owner allowed him or even ordered to write.But who ultimately controls the pen/pencil/keyboard? You're confusing proximate with ultimate.
Who cares? The issue is the right to control, also known as ownership.
Juan: http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Or he could be violating his ownership,
trespassing on his property for all we know.
Juan,
lol
AJ:Juan: http://www.merriam-webster.com/
good dialoguing again there AJ. thanks for proving AE.
Juan:Using what authority ?
His ownership.
Juan:What ownership ?
Property right. The right to control and exclusive use.
Juan:What, trespassing ?
Call it unauthorized use of property then.
Juan:And this property, it is 'his', How ?
Maybe he bought him, or received as a gift. Use your imagination.
thanks for dialoguing scineram and proving AE again.
and even if it is not you dialoguing, it's a dialogue speaking through you, in possession of you, and still a dialogue none-the-less. thanks for proving AE.