nirgrahamUK: as far as hypocrisy goes, if its not possible for anyone to state some particular position without being hypocritical in so doing. then in the case of that particular propostion the problem is not in the hypocrit, but rather, in the contradiction the hypocrit espouses.
as far as hypocrisy goes, if its not possible for anyone to state some particular position without being hypocritical in so doing. then in the case of that particular propostion the problem is not in the hypocrit, but rather, in the contradiction the hypocrit espouses.
I must repeat that the revelation of someone's hypocrisy by itself does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove either side of the formula. For example, if a pacifist supports the state, yes, this makes them a hypocrit, but pointing this out in no way constitutes a logical disproof of either pacifism or statism. So my point still stands that other people's hypocrisy doesn't make a logical proof for libertarianism, let alone anything else.
It would disprove pacifism if it would be logically impossible for anyone to positively argue for pacifism without contradicting themselves.
It so happens that in the case of pacifism, it is not logically impossible for anyone to positively argue for pacifism without contradicting themselves. Therefore some people might argue without contradiction and other might argue with contradiction.
The issue is not about any one person hypocrisy.
The point is that there are a class of statements that no-one could positively argue for without contradicting themselves. This is another way of saying that they cannot be argued for. If you want to believe that what cannot be argued for, can be argued for (and that you simply call such a mess 'hypocrisy' and don’t judge whether they are actually being argued for or not, then I suggest that might be a problem for you
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
Rasmussen and Den Uyl's "Natural End Ethics: A Rejoinder to O'Neil and Osterfeld" contains a reply, from an Aristotelian natural-rights perspective.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
whipitgood: I stumbled, quite accidentally, upon one of his old JLS articles about natural rights. It seemed particularly insightful, and I could not find much to quarrel with. Has anyone read it, and if so, what do you think? Is he on to something here? http://mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_5.pdf
I stumbled, quite accidentally, upon one of his old JLS articles about natural rights. It seemed particularly insightful, and I could not find much to quarrel with. Has anyone read it, and if so, what do you think? Is he on to something here?
http://mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_5.pdf
Osterfeld is wrong on page 106 in that his syllogism is not formally correct. The one I am referring to is
1. Ultimate ends E1, E2, ..., En can be attained only through means m. (is)
2. Everyone desires or values ends E1, E2, ..., En. (is)
3. Everyone ought to adopt means m. (ought)
He is slipping in a hidden ought statement by assuming but not stating that everyone ought to attain ends that are desired or valued.
While such reasoning is certainly persuasive to those involved, he is using ought in the sense of a moral obligation.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
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."
Brainpolice:Hoppe's "argumentation ethics", Kinsella's "estoppel argument" and Molyneux's "universally preferable behavior" all suffer from these same basic philosophical problems: the conflation of prescriptive statements with descriptive statements, the conflation of normative ethics with metaphysics, the conflation of acts of personal hypocrisy with logical contradictions and the conflation of falsifications with positive proofs.
I think you've hit the heart of the matter. If one reads such theories with a critical eye toward conflations and equivocations, the errors jump right out at you.
Why anarchy fails
http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/econ-ethics-appx.pdf
Hoppe answers his critics.
excerpt:
Arguing is an activity and requires a person's exclusive control over
scarce resources (one's brain, vocal chords, etc.). More specifically, as long
as there is argumentation, there is a mutual recognition of each other's
exclusive control over such resources. It is this which explains the unique
feature of communication: that while one may disagree about what has been
said, it is still possible to independently agree at least on the fact that there
is disagreement. (Lomasky does not seem to dispute this. He claims,
however, that it merely proves the fact of mutually exclusive domains of
control, not the right of self-ownership. He errs: Whatever - such as the law
of contradiction, for instance - must be presupposed insofar as one argues,
cannot be meaningfully disputed, because it is the very precondition of
meaningful doubt, and hence must be regarded as indisputable, or a priori
valid. In the same vein. the fact of self-ownership is a praxeological
precondition of argumentation. Anyone trying to prove or disprove anything
must in fact be a self-owner. It is a self-contradictory absurdity then to ask
for any further-reaching justification for this fact. Required, of necessity, by
all meaningful argumentation, self-ownership is an absolutely and ultimately
justified fact.)
Brainpolice:The problem is that the contradiction is not a formal or logical contradiction, it is only a contradiction between one's theory and one's behavior at best, and even that isn't necessarily the case because it is simply not true that everyone already presupposes the same normative ethic as you.
wombatron:Rasmussen and Den Uyl's "Natural End Ethics: A Rejoinder to O'Neil and Osterfeld" contains a reply, from an Aristotelian natural-rights perspective.
I stopped reading on page 2:
"A major portion of O'Neil's argument is based on the fallacious assumption that a choice at t is necessarily about the future. In fact, on the contrary, the correct way to describe any choice we make is that it involves bringing the present into the future. What and where we are at present is as important to an accurate description of choice-making as is the future. Thus, it is incorrect to say all choices are about the future."
If this is the standard of discourse we can expect from the rest of the essay, I think the argument is already over.
Substantiate. Their discourse seems fine.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
There is always a delay between choice and action, even if only a few seconds.
Re-read the passage, as they're not denying that. They are saying ommitting the present in regards to choices renders an incomplete picture of them; the way I read it is translating present wants into future realities.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Brainpolice:The problem is that the contradiction is not a formal or logical contradiction, it is only a contradiction between one's theory and one's behavior at best, and even that isn't necessarily the case because it is simply not true that everyone already presupposes the same normative ethic as you.But that's not what's going on. Since your screed rests upon that strawman, we can end this here.
It isn't a strawman that argumentation ethics is essentially claiming that libertarianism (or a particular conception thereof) is inherently proven (or at least presupposed) by the mere act of argueing against it, on the grounds that any argument against it is automatically falsified due to something that is implicit in the very act of argumentation. That's basically the central thesis, and I just explained what's wrong with such a thesis. The problem could not be more obvious.
Brainpolice:It isn't a strawman that
Hint: it's about having a baseline.
Hoppe: Arguing is an activity and requires a person's exclusive control over scarce resources (one's brain, vocal chords, etc.).
Arguing is an activity and requires a person's exclusive control over scarce resources (one's brain, vocal chords, etc.).
So far so good.
Hoppe:More specifically, as long as there is argumentation, there is a mutual recognition of each other's exclusive control over such resources.
Here Hoppe can charitably be interpreted in one of two ways:
Hoppe:It is this which explains the unique feature of communication: that while one may disagree about what has been said, it is still possible to independently agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement.
Note that this implies Interpretation (1) above, and does not imply Interpretation (2). So far he consistently means (1); no equivocation yet.
Hoppe:(Lomasky does not seem to dispute this. He claims, however, that it merely proves the fact of mutually exclusive domains of control, not the right of self-ownership. He errs: Whatever - such as the law of contradiction, for instance - must be presupposed insofar as one argues, cannot be meaningfully disputed, because it is the very precondition of meaningful doubt, and hence must be regarded as indisputable, or a priori valid.
This still implies Interpretation (1), and not (2), because at best only the fact of "each other's exclusive control over such resources" need be presupposed, and only that fact cannot be meaningfully disputed. One could of course meaningfully dispute the right of exclusive control without pressupposing such a right. All that is actually required is presupposition of the fact, not the right. Lomasky may be wrong (or not), but in any case Hoppe must still intend Interpretation (1) here if Hoppe is to be interpreted charitably.
Note that switching to Interpretation (2) without explicit reference to that switch would be a bald equivocation. So far, Hoppe is in the clear.
Hoppe:In the same vein, the fact of self-ownership is a praxeological precondition of argumentation. Anyone trying to prove or disprove anything must in fact be a self-owner.
If his argument is to coherently follow from what he wrote above, Hoppe must here define "the fact of self-ownership" as "the fact of 'each other's exclusive control over such resources'." And he must define "self-owner" as "one who has 'exclusive control over such resources'."
Hoppe still clearly means Interpretation (1) above. Still no equivocation.
Hoppe:It is a self-contradictory absurdity then to ask for any further-reaching justification for this fact. Required, of necessity, by all meaningful argumentation, self-ownership is an absolutely and ultimately justified fact.)
From above, all Hoppe is saying here is, "each other's exclusive control over such resources" is an absolutely and ultimately justified fact. But the dear reader will note that this statement - taken at face value - does not imply Hoppe's argumentation ethics (right to exclusive control), only argumentation facts (fact of exclusive control).
No, for Hoppe's purposes, the sentence will have to carry the implication that "the right of self-ownership is an absolutely and ultimately justified fact." Sadly, Hoppe can only achieve this by pulling the old switcheroo, by equivocating between Interpretation (1) and Interpretation (2).
Juan:zefreak = broken record.
If only it wasn't necessary. Is it my fault that discourse among natural law philosophers are prone to similar errors?
Jon Irenicus: Re-read the passage, as they're not denying that. They are saying ommitting the present in regards to choices renders an incomplete picture of them; the way I read it is translating present wants into future realities.
Insofar as they're not denying that, they're not successfully refuting O'Neil.
Excellent post AJ. I see similar equivocation among many natural rights philosophies.
in fact, he is not switchign from 1 to 2, but everywhere using 2. because argumentation is something different from two tape machines with different 'arguments'(sic) loaded in set up to sound off with each other in a room. there are norms to argumentation. its called the apriori of argumentation
Frank van Dun,
The key to understanding the argument from argumentation is, first,
that when they are told or asked (not) to believe, say, or do something people
are likely and in fact entitled to question why they ought (not) to believe, say,
or do it; and second, that an exchange of arguments is a justificatory
argumentation only if all the participants acknowledge certain facts and abide
by certain norms—norms that no one can argue are invalid because
adherence to those norms is a necessary condition of engaging in
argumentation. In short, argumentation does not and cannot take place in a
normative void:
any truth claim […] is and must be raised and decided upon in the
course of an argumentation. And since it cannot be disputed that
this is so, […] this has been aptly called “the a priori of
communication and argumentation.” Now, arguing never consists of
free-floating propositions9 claiming to be true. Rather,
argumentation is always an activity, too. [… It] follows that
intersubjectively meaningful norms must exist—precisely those
which make some action an argumentation—which have special
cognitive status in that they are the practical preconditions of
objectivity and truth. Hence […] norms must indeed be assumed to
be justifiable as valid. It is simply impossible to argue otherwise,
because the ability to argue so would in fact presuppose the validity
of those norms which underlie any argumentation whatsoever.10
Brainpolice: Knight_of_BAAWA: Brainpolice:The problem is that the contradiction is not a formal or logical contradiction, it is only a contradiction between one's theory and one's behavior at best, and even that isn't necessarily the case because it is simply not true that everyone already presupposes the same normative ethic as you.But that's not what's going on. Since your screed rests upon that strawman, we can end this here. It isn't a strawman that argumentation ethics is essentially claiming that libertarianism (or a particular conception thereof) is inherently proven (or at least presupposed) by the mere act of argueing against it, on the grounds that any argument against it is automatically falsified due to something that is implicit in the very act of argumentation. That's basically the central thesis, and I just explained what's wrong with such a thesis. The problem could not be more obvious.
Here's Hoppe's succinct description of his own theory:
"Instead, it is a proof that it is impossible to propositionally justify non-libertarian principles without falling into contradictions."(underline added)
The contradiction in Hoppe's AE is not a formal or logical contradiction, but a "performative" contradiction, e.g., saying aloud "I am not talking."
One simple problem occurs in Hoppe's theory if he doesn't account for the intention of the actor. So for example, someone who says aloud "I am not talking" may be practicing for a play, or wanting to hear the sound of his own voice, or trying to irritate a proponent of the AE, etc....
(this idea is taken from John Searle's Minds, Brains and Science, p.57, which Hoppe cites in a debate with Block)
Another problem that is usually overlooked. Hoppe's theory essentially links two things: "arguing for a nonlibertarian ethic," and "contradiction."
The plain meaning of his theory is that anyone arguing for a nonlibertarian ethic contradicts himself, and such a contradiction is the negative consequence a person must suffer for advancing nonlibertarian ideas during argumentation. The contradiction is clearly meant to be something negative or harmful for the person committing it. If Hoppe's theory were proven correct, then an actor could use the information Hoppe's theory provides to avoid a specific type of harm or unhappiness: In order to avoid a type of uhappines (Y), do not argue for nonlibertarian ethics (X).
In other words, if Hoppe's theory is correct, then it links two phenomena--the act of person A, and some negative cosequence to A--and shows person A how to avoid the consequence by abstaining from the act. But then, this is praxeology proper. It is a demonstration of the apodictically certain consequences of a specific form of human action, i.e., argumentation.
The main point is that if Hoppe's theory were proven correct, it would constitute essentially an analysis of the necessary consequences of a specific means of action, and would thus constitute a simple praxeological insight or law.
The problem for Hoppe's theory is that in order to demonstrate apodictically certain relations between things, the analytical method used may have to be free of particular content (in social science, this is referred to as "value free") similar to the way mathematics and formal logic proceed, without specifiying particulars.
But this approach is closed to Hoppe to the extent he seeks to "justify" a particular: the Lockean private property ethic.
Hoppe is trying to establish apodictically certain relations while using particulars as theoretical elements. This is the source from which most of the problems derive.
"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)
the 'problems' you pose are not....
in the case of an actor, you have set upo the premise that he is not arguing, that his statements are not attempt to put forward propositions.
Hoppe is not arguing that 'bad consequences' arise from saying falsehoods, and these bads are the incentive to be moral. can you find a qoute to support this allegation? (lying and or being wrong may increase ones odds of entailing bad consequences but thats obviously a contengent argument that hoppe didnt even brush on from what I have read...(this is off-topic)) , Hoppe merely provides a theory of understanding what are the falsehoods when they are said. thats enough.
I say 'merely' but its an awesome achievement.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Brainpolice:It isn't a strawman thatYes,it is. You explained that you don't understand argumentation ethics. Fine. No problem. Refrain from discussing it until you understand it. Hint: it's about having a baseline.
Sorry, but completely ignoring my entire post without explaining why I'm making a strawman doesn't make your case. I am describing argumentation ethics as Hoppe himself has put it foreward. There is no strawman. Hoppe claims that the very act of argumentation falsifies any argument against libertarianism.
nirgrahamUK: Frank van Dun, any truth claim […] is and must be raised and decided upon in the course of an argumentation.
course of an argumentation.
Person A: I believe X is true, do you agree ?
Person B: Yup.
(no argument, only a discussion)
Person A writes on a piece of paper: Truth claim X. (no argument, only writing on paper)
Person A thinks to himself: "I believe X is true." (no argument, only thinking)
Person A points a gun at person B and claims: "X is true !!" (no argument, only a command, coercive act, etc....)
nirgrahamUK: tacoface: perhaps you can help me dig myself out of my hole then. how is your logic not circular? circularity doesnt come into it when you are talking facts. it is a fact that you own yourself. It would be pretty weird if everything under anarchy were privatised, apart from peoples bodies, that where little spots of unowned property wandering around. why would you want to claim you didnt own you?, unnless you were wanting someone else to come and homestead you?. being homesteaded doesn't sound like a good time in my opinion. Brainpolice might disagree.
tacoface: perhaps you can help me dig myself out of my hole then. how is your logic not circular?
perhaps you can help me dig myself out of my hole then.
how is your logic not circular?
circularity doesnt come into it when you are talking facts. it is a fact that you own yourself.
It would be pretty weird if everything under anarchy were privatised, apart from peoples bodies, that where little spots of unowned property wandering around. why would you want to claim you didnt own you?, unnless you were wanting someone else to come and homestead you?. being homesteaded doesn't sound like a good time in my opinion. Brainpolice might disagree.
i would like to take your word for it but i need more than that. some proof or summat i dunno. i would like to agree but it doesnt seem right just saying its a fact, accept it.
it just seems so much like god created the universe, but.....???
i think i'm out of my league, my philosophical skills are very poor
But the dear reader will note that this statement - taken at face value - does not imply Hoppe's argumentation ethics (right to exclusive control), only argumentation facts (fact of exclusive control).
That's precisely my point - the attempt to act as if anyone argueing against the *ethic* of "self-ownership" is denying the *fact* of physiological autonomy or intentionality is a conflation between normative ethics and physical or metaphysical facts. The attempt to "prove" the *right* of "self-ownership" by simply appealing to the fact that people have physiological autonomy is quite obviously a conflation between the descriptive and perscriptive. At no point does this really "get around" the is/ought issue in any way whatsoever. It simply conflates is and ought.
how would you like me to respond? with non-sequiturs of my own?
nirgrahamUK: how would you like me to respond? with non-sequiturs of my own?
yes.
no wait.
some proof? reasoning??
Brainpolice:That's precisely my point - the attempt to act as if anyone argueing against the *ethic* of "self-ownership" is denying the *fact* of physiological autonomy or intentionality is a conflation between normative ethics and physical or metaphysical facts. The attempt to "prove" the *right* of "self-ownership" by simply appealing to the fact that people have physiological autonomy is quite obviously a conflation between the descriptive and perscriptive. At no point does this really "get around" the is/ought issue in any way whatsoever. It simply conflates is and ought.
well if you didnt strawman before , now you have since :
no one is 'attempting to act as if anyone argueing against the *ethic* of "self-ownership" is denying the *fact* of physiological autonomy or intentionality '
we are attempting to act as if anyone argueing against the ethic of selfownership is being absurd and this is known by observing their performance of a performative contradiction
taco, my question about how to respond was to mr knott. maybe you and i should have a private conversation, or open a new thread. this one is already off topic.
nirgrahamUK: the 'problems' you pose are not.... in the case of an actor, you have set upo the premise that he is not arguing, that his statements are not attempt to put forward propositions. Hoppe is not arguing that 'bad consequences' arise from saying falsehoods, and these bads are the incentive to be moral. can you find a qoute to support this allegation? (lying and or being wrong may increase ones odds of entailing bad consequences but thats obviously a contengent argument that hoppe didnt even brush on from what I have read...(this is off-topic)) , Hoppe merely provides a theory of understanding what are the falsehoods when they are said. thats enough. I say 'merely' but its an awesome achievement.
Please provide the passages in Hoppe's argumentation ethics where he refers to the concept of "falsehoods."
And I'm saying that this claim is horseshit. It can only be gotten away with by conflating perscriptive statements with descriptive ones. For example, if I say "there is no right of self-ownership", argumentation ethics can only claim that this is a "performative contradiction" by conflating "the right of self-ownership" with the fact that people purposefully act or have physiological control of their bodies. But "the right of self-ownership" is *not* the fact that people have physiological control of their bodies, it is a normative ethical premise based on non-interferance of their bodies by an external authority. By making the statement "there is no right to self-ownership", I am not contradicting the fact that I have physiological control of my body, because I'm not denying that I have physiological control of my body. There is no contradiction, hence the misleading nature of the argument.
Brainpolice:For example, if I say "there is no right of self-ownership", argumentation ethics can only claim that this is a "performative contradiction" by conflating "the right of self-ownership" with the fact that people purposefully act or have physiological control of their bodies. But "the right of self-ownership" is *not* the fact that people have physiological control of their bodies, it is a normative ethical premise based on non-interferance of their bodies by an external authority. By making the statement "there is no right to self-ownership", I am not contradicting the fact that I have physiological control of my body, because I'm not denying that I have physiological control of my body. There is no contradiction, hence the misleading nature of the argument.
are you just saying it to the wall?. or are you arguing it and therefore presupposing various interpersonal norms?
nirgrahamUK: Brainpolice:For example, if I say "there is no right of self-ownership", argumentation ethics can only claim that this is a "performative contradiction" by conflating "the right of self-ownership" with the fact that people purposefully act or have physiological control of their bodies. But "the right of self-ownership" is *not* the fact that people have physiological control of their bodies, it is a normative ethical premise based on non-interferance of their bodies by an external authority. By making the statement "there is no right to self-ownership", I am not contradicting the fact that I have physiological control of my body, because I'm not denying that I have physiological control of my body. There is no contradiction, hence the misleading nature of the argument. are you just saying it to the wall?. or are you arguing it and therefore presupposing various interpersonal norms?
From the fact that I'm argueing it, it does not logically follow that I am presupposing your interpersonal norms. In fact, it is you who is presupposing your interpersonal norms and trying to universalize it onto the very act of argumentation in the attempt to falsify any argument against it, which is sophistry. It does not logically follow from the fact that I peacefully debate you that the alternatives to peaceful debate are falseified as interpersonal norms any more than it logically follows from the fact that I bludgeon you over the head with an axe that the alternatives to bludgeoning people over the head with axes are falseified as interpersonal norms. You need to make a positive case for your interpersonal norms; appealing to the behavior of the person that you're argueing with won't cut it.
Adam Knott:Please provide the passages in Hoppe's argumentation ethics where he refers to the concept of "falsehoods."
do you deny that his argumentation ethics involves understanding that some set of propositions are false , and knowing this by recognising the performative contradiction involved in the stating of them. ?
if you dont deny it, then dont be petulant. if you do deny it I will ask you how you manage that....
Brainpolice:From the fact that I'm argueing it, it does not logically follow that I am presupposing your interpersonal norms. In fact, it is you who is presupposing your interpersonal norms and trying to universalize it onto the very act of argumentation in the attempt to falsify any argument against it, which is sophistry.
are you presupposing any interpersonal norms, or am i just a wall ?
wallgrahamUK
nirgrahamUK: Brainpolice:From the fact that I'm argueing it, it does not logically follow that I am presupposing your interpersonal norms. In fact, it is you who is presupposing your interpersonal norms and trying to universalize it onto the very act of argumentation in the attempt to falsify any argument against it, which is sophistry. are you presupposing any interpersonal norms, or am i just a wall ?
I am not inherently presupposing your specific interpersonal norms by simply argueing with you rather than a wall. The question "am I just a wall?" misses the point, which is that interpersonal norms are not proven or disproven by how people behave in debates.
Brainpolice:The question "am I just a wall?" misses the point, which is that interpersonal norms are not proven or disproven by how people behave in debates.
what (if any) interpersonal norms do you think are implicit in argumentation?
Brainpolice:Sorry, but completely ignoring my entire post
So yes: it is a strawman. You need to read what Hoppe writes, rather than what you want him to have written. That's piss-poor debating on your part.