ha, lets consider that sorted and never speak of it again..
ho! ho!
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
Anarcho-Mercantilist:How do you conclude that "nuclear weapons are immoral" or that "violent retribution is immoral" merely from Hoppe's "self-ownership" argument? You can't.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Anarcho-Mercantilist:How do you conclude that "nuclear weapons are immoral" or that "violent retribution is immoral" merely from Hoppe's "self-ownership" argument? You can't.Red herring. Want to try again?
Let me rephrase this claim: You can derive those two statements if you incorporate additional 'consequentalist-like' arguments, but not with Hoppe's mere "self-ownership" argumnent.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
Red herring is right. at first i thought it was a strawman, but the fact that you arent even pretending we hold the claims you are mocking must make it a red herring
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Let me rephrase this claim: You can derive those two statements if you incorporate additional 'consequentalist-like' arguments, but not with Hoppe's mere "self-ownership" argumnent.
AM:Generally, we should justify the non-aggression principle from strictly 'consequentialist-like' arguments such as how free trade and ownership of capital goods will maximize prosperity, how the prohibition of drugs and prostitution will increase crime, how economic interventions allow rent-seeking, how the free market will solve the free rider problem and externalities, how the free market will provide better defense and roads than the state, etc.
Like most self-identified 'consequentialists', most self-identified 'deontologists' will also choose to infringe the property rights in lifeboat situations. For example, most self-identified 'deontologists' will justify that Klemm should break into Tom's cabin.
Libertarians, for example, will also conflate 'deontology' with the the belief that ethical prescriptions are inherent to the essence of a human.
...please check out Jim Peron's article (2001) concluding that the 'deontology/consequentialist' dichotomy between the schools of libertarianism is a matter of semantics.
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."
wilderness: Nitroadict: What do you mean by "are they being"? As concepts? Or as things that literally exist? It all sounds almost too vague to warrant a discussion. objects. objects that can be intellectually apprehended. The conceptual, knowledgeable aspect as in what do they mean, etc... doesn't need to be brought up now.
Nitroadict: What do you mean by "are they being"? As concepts? Or as things that literally exist? It all sounds almost too vague to warrant a discussion.
What do you mean by "are they being"? As concepts? Or as things that literally exist? It all sounds almost too vague to warrant a discussion.
objects. objects that can be intellectually apprehended. The conceptual, knowledgeable aspect as in what do they mean, etc... doesn't need to be brought up now.
I guess it's too difficult for some people to be able to point at something and state: 'that's liberty' - 'that's life.' - 'that's property.' If you can't even perceive and point-out life, liberty, and property, then be default you have no knowledge about them to begin with.
AJ: Hoppe: 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: Recognition = acknowledgment of the fact of "each other's exclusive control over such resources." Recognition = acknowledgment of each other's right of exclusive control over such resources. 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).
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).
nirgrahamUK:in fact, he is not switchign from 1 to 2, but everywhere using 2.
Oh?
Why anarchy fails
2 does not exclude 1 , does it?
Neither does Interpretation 2 imply Interpretation 1. Below I explain from yet another perspective how this is fatal for Hoppe's claim:
AJ: 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 presupposing 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.
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 presupposing 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.
In order to refute the above, one must argue that mere presupposition of the fact of "each other's exclusive control over such resources" (Interpretation 1) is not enough to avoid contradiction. One must argue that presupposition of additional norms or rights is required to avoid falling into a contradiction. One must articulate why the argument would be contradictory without that addition.
Juan: Brainpolice:But to address the original question, I'm not exactly a utilitarian (in the sense of making use of a pleasure/pain principle or in the sense of trying to make morality metric). By calling you a utilitarian, I meant that you don't believe in universal, 'natural' human rights that can be logically justified. Am I right about your position, that is, you don't believe in 'objective' individual rights ?
Brainpolice:But to address the original question, I'm not exactly a utilitarian (in the sense of making use of a pleasure/pain principle or in the sense of trying to make morality metric).
That all hinges on what one means by "objective". If by "objective" one means that rights can be justified as having a rational connection to self-interest, then I do believe in "objective" rights. I just don't use a deontological basis for rights.
wilderness: wilderness: Nitroadict: What do you mean by "are they being"? As concepts? Or as things that literally exist? It all sounds almost too vague to warrant a discussion. objects. objects that can be intellectually apprehended. The conceptual, knowledgeable aspect as in what do they mean, etc... doesn't need to be brought up now. I guess it's too difficult for some people to be able to point at something and state: 'that's liberty' - 'that's life.' - 'that's property.' If you can't even perceive and point-out life, liberty, and property, then be default you have no knowledge about them to begin with.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Knight_of_BAAWA: Brainpolice:I don't advocate the Kantian Golden Rule and the universalizability test. In fact, I've blogged repeatedly on why I think that universality by itself is insufficient, and sometimes too rigid.Question: if someone says "I believe it's ok for me to initiate force against others, but it's not ok for them to do it to me", what fallacy is that called?
Brainpolice:I don't advocate the Kantian Golden Rule and the universalizability test. In fact, I've blogged repeatedly on why I think that universality by itself is insufficient, and sometimes too rigid.
It would simply be hypocrisy. But the reason why initiating aggression is wrong is not a universality test in the mold of Molyneux's UPB, which actually does not give a reason for why it's wrong, it only rules out alternative inconsistent moral theories.
Nitroadict: wilderness: wilderness: Nitroadict: What do you mean by "are they being"? As concepts? Or as things that literally exist? It all sounds almost too vague to warrant a discussion. objects. objects that can be intellectually apprehended. The conceptual, knowledgeable aspect as in what do they mean, etc... doesn't need to be brought up now. I guess it's too difficult for some people to be able to point at something and state: 'that's liberty' - 'that's life.' - 'that's property.' If you can't even perceive and point-out life, liberty, and property, then be default you have no knowledge about them to begin with. I was asking what constitutes life, liberty, property in your view. I thought this was implied by "what do you mean?"I don't know why you are getting cross over this, aside from me not instantly agreeing to you or knowing exactly what you mean.
As I stated you started on the wrong foot with the whole dots thing so weather the storm. And I asked you is life, liberty, and property something you can point at and state for each of them - 'That's what ____ is.' I'm not asking a difficult question - really I'm not.
wilderness: Nitroadict: wilderness: wilderness: Nitroadict: What do you mean by "are they being"? As concepts? Or as things that literally exist? It all sounds almost too vague to warrant a discussion. objects. objects that can be intellectually apprehended. The conceptual, knowledgeable aspect as in what do they mean, etc... doesn't need to be brought up now. I guess it's too difficult for some people to be able to point at something and state: 'that's liberty' - 'that's life.' - 'that's property.' If you can't even perceive and point-out life, liberty, and property, then be default you have no knowledge about them to begin with. I was asking what constitutes life, liberty, property in your view. I thought this was implied by "what do you mean?"I don't know why you are getting cross over this, aside from me not instantly agreeing to you or knowing exactly what you mean. As I stated you started on the wrong foot with the whole dots thing so weather the storm. And I asked you is life, liberty, and property something you can point at and state for each of them - 'That's what ____ is.' I'm not asking a difficult question - really I'm not.
Nitroadict: Are you asking me is "life liberty and property" objective or subjective? That they actually exist or only exist if we think they exist? Or are you asking me something else?
Are you asking me is "life liberty and property" objective or subjective? That they actually exist or only exist if we think they exist? Or are you asking me something else?
Are life, liberty, and property things in themselves? Are they objects that can be intellectually apprehended?
- I'm avoiding objective and subjective cause I don't like their baggage. So forgive me if I don't use those terms yet.
- I'm asking if you think they exist cause they actually exist.
wilderness: Nitroadict: Are you asking me is "life liberty and property" objective or subjective? That they actually exist or only exist if we think they exist? Or are you asking me something else? Are life, liberty, and property things in themselves? Are they objects that can be intellectually apprehended? - I'm avoiding objective and subjective cause I don't like their baggage. So forgive me if I don't use those terms yet. - I'm asking if you think they exist cause they actually exist.
Life & liberty are not literal objects. Property can be represented by literal objects, but the concept of property varies from various stateless societies to state societies, just as the concept of property can be interpreted by different individuals (which may result in vast ideological differences we see accordingly from anarchism to communism to socialism etc.). Is that better?
Nitroadict: wilderness: Nitroadict: Are you asking me is "life liberty and property" objective or subjective? That they actually exist or only exist if we think they exist? Or are you asking me something else? Are life, liberty, and property things in themselves? Are they objects that can be intellectually apprehended? - I'm avoiding objective and subjective cause I don't like their baggage. So forgive me if I don't use those terms yet. - I'm asking if you think they exist cause they actually exist. Life & liberty are not literal objects.
Life & liberty are not literal objects.
So you don't think you can refer or point out life? I think it's possible. A rock is not life. A micro-organism and tree are and are also classified biologically under the term life. It's scientific.
I also think I can refer to liberty. It is free-will. When choice is able to occur and/or I am moving my body that's liberty in action.
Do you therefore disagree with this? It is empirically based, meaning, these two terms are sensory receptive and my intellect can apprehend their existence. Maybe you disagree.
Nitroadict: Property can be represented by literal objects, but the concept of property varies from various stateless societies to state societies, just as the concept of property can be interpreted by different individuals (which may result in vast ideological differences we see accordingly from anarchism to communism to socialism etc.). Is that better?
Property can be represented by literal objects, but the concept of property varies from various stateless societies to state societies, just as the concept of property can be interpreted by different individuals (which may result in vast ideological differences we see accordingly from anarchism to communism to socialism etc.). Is that better?
Property is heavy fought over philosophically as you note. Property is my being. It is me, in other words, I am me. Property=me. property can equal you too. From the dictionary:
-----
I am my own as the Latin "from proprius" states. These are the definitions from my computer dictionary that came with this apple computer of mine that I'm referring to. So I'm not using a unique dictionary at all, a simple run-of-the-mill one.
So I guess you are stating that life and liberty are not facts and only mental concepts. I would disagree for that would suggest that they are not of reality and are only mental constructs. The thing is, now that we've slightly begun to define and provide our knowledge about these terms suggests to me that they do exist. You have recognized that life, liberty, and property exist. The definitions though are what people debate. I was only wondering if you thought they existed and since you first state life and liberty are "not literal objects" therefore you had to have perceived them in some form or fashion or you wouldn't have been able to define them. Same goes for property.
Brainpolice:It would simply be hypocrisy.
And what Hoppe is doing is ruling out inconsistencies by showing the preconditions for discussion. But you knew that too, DIDN'T YOU?
wilderness:So I guess you are stating that life and liberty are not facts and only mental concepts.
wilderness:I would disagree for that would suggest that they are not of reality and are only mental constructs.
wilderness: The thing is, now that we've slightly begun to define and provide our knowledge about these terms suggests to me that they do exist.
wilderness:You have recognized that life, liberty, and property exist.
wilderness:I was only wondering if you thought they existed and since you first state life and liberty are "not literal objects" therefore you had to have perceived them in some form or fashion or you wouldn't have been able to define them. Same goes for property.
Nitroadict: wilderness:So I guess you are stating that life and liberty are not facts and only mental concepts.When did I say that? You are over complicating things as usual.
I said "objects". You then changed the wording to "not literal things". I have no clue what you mean by the latter and so guessed.
Nitroadict: Life and liberty are concepts that seem to only have meaning for human beings. Even then, they can be subjectively interpreted, no matter how long & loud one individual may scream amongst the crowd that they are objective concepts & not subjective.
Subjectively interpreted, I can only guess that means we can gather knowledge on them in our own ways, which I stated is getting ahead of the discussion. I only asked if they exist or not. You seem to not to be able to answer yes or no. That's why I didn't ask a difficult question cause a yes or no answer would have been sufficient.
Nitroadict: No, I am not saying it makes it useless, I am not objecting to the concept of liberty (otherwise I wouldn't give a damn about any of this), I am saying it is a concept that may and will be different from individual to individual, the same as one's preferences for a favorite color is.
Again getting into the knowledge of what these are. Bringing the attention to definitions. I only asked you if they exist or not. yes or no.
Nitroadict: Life & liberty most likely don't exist as concepts for animals, possibly because they lack consciousness or the same neurological capabilities as human beings.
Life & liberty most likely don't exist as concepts for animals, possibly because they lack consciousness or the same neurological capabilities as human beings.
i agree
Nitroadict: Yet, reality goes on regardless of them having these conceptions or not, & doesn't halt to a stand still because animals cannot conceive concepts of liberty, property, or life.
Yet, reality goes on regardless of them having these conceptions or not, & doesn't halt to a stand still because animals cannot conceive concepts of liberty, property, or life.
yes, but this doesn't answer the question. Do they or do they not exist? I mean we are not animals that can't intellectually apprehend the existence of things and we therefore are able to share what we think exists or not. So share away.
Nitroadict: Nope sorry, reality goes on perfectly fine with or without humans coming up with ideas, concepts, & new ways of killing each other. The physical universe exists regardless.
Nope sorry, reality goes on perfectly fine with or without humans coming up with ideas, concepts, & new ways of killing each other. The physical universe exists regardless.
getting ahead of the discussion, I mean you haven't even stated if life, liberty, and property exists or not. You've implied they do by trying to define them, but you have yet to simply answer the question - yes or no.
Nitroadict: wilderness: The thing is, now that we've slightly begun to define and provide our knowledge about these terms suggests to me that they do exist.No. All it suggests is that I know what concepts you are talking about; this doesn't prove anything beyond other humans are capable of knowing these concepts that may not exist (i.e. are abstract).
I'm talking to you, not other people. Let's not start thinking for them.
Nitroadict: If we talked about cold fusion / wormholes / wrap drives/ as (actual, not fictional) concepts, that does not prove they truly exists in the physical universe.
fairy tales exist as fairy tales and exist none-the-less
Nitroadict: wilderness:You have recognized that life, liberty, and property exist. Inaccurate; I recognized the concepts can exist, & that they are interpreted differently. I did not say they inherently exist in the physical universe. To say they exist because they exist in nature and/or the physical universe would be a naturalistic fallacy, methinks.
ok, the concepts exist where then if not in this universe? It is assumed that concepts of fairy tales or atoms do appear in this universe, in your head and/or external to your head which is still in this universe. I assumed these are givens.
Nitroadict: wilderness: I was only wondering if you thought they existed and since you first state life and liberty are "not literal objects" therefore you had to have perceived them in some form or fashion or you wouldn't have been able to define them. Same goes for property.Please elaborate without wordiness & lectures :\
wilderness: I was only wondering if you thought they existed and since you first state life and liberty are "not literal objects" therefore you had to have perceived them in some form or fashion or you wouldn't have been able to define them. Same goes for property.
I was only wondering if you thought they existed and since you first state life and liberty are "not literal objects" therefore you had to have perceived them in some form or fashion or you wouldn't have been able to define them. Same goes for property.
"elaborate without wordiness" now there's a thought
AJ:In order to refute the above, one must argue that mere presupposition of the fact of "each other's exclusive control over such resources" (Interpretation 1) is not enough to avoid contradiction. One must argue that presupposition of additional norms or rights is required to avoid falling into a contradiction. One must articulate why the argument would be contradictory without that addition.
Can you give an example? That wasn't clear enough for me.
wilderness:"elaborate without wordiness" now there's a thought
You guys are both very thoughtful posters, so I find it odd that you're both at odds with the other. Must be a full moon.
liberty student: wilderness:"elaborate without wordiness" now there's a thought You guys are both very thoughtful posters, so I find it odd that you're both at odds with the other. Must be a full moon.
I keep asking a yes or no or he could even say "I don't know" - question. And he hasn't answered it yet, but goes on to say I need to stop with the wordiness and lectures - meanwhile he keeps asking me questions on what I mean. So I'm being polite and answering his questions but then he asks me not to be wordy and lecture him. I don't know (picture me throwing up my hands in wonder). I should've took the hint when he started the discussion with the comment on the "dots". I asked him if he was having a bad day - no answer. I'm not trying to be difficult.
twistedbydsign99: AJ:In order to refute the above, one must argue that mere presupposition of the fact of "each other's exclusive control over such resources" (Interpretation 1) is not enough to avoid contradiction. One must argue that presupposition of additional norms or rights is required to avoid falling into a contradiction. One must articulate why the argument would be contradictory without that addition. Can you give an example? That wasn't clear enough for me.
I contend that there are no examples. To simply engage in argumentation, the additional requirement to recognize a "right" not to be interfered with beyond mere recognition of the fact that someone has not been interfered with is extraneous.
AJ: twistedbydsign99: AJ:In order to refute the above, one must argue that mere presupposition of the fact of "each other's exclusive control over such resources" (Interpretation 1) is not enough to avoid contradiction. One must argue that presupposition of additional norms or rights is required to avoid falling into a contradiction. One must articulate why the argument would be contradictory without that addition. Can you give an example? That wasn't clear enough for me. I contend that there are no examples. To simply engage in argumentation, the additional requirement to recognize a "right" not to be interfered with beyond mere recognition of the fact that someone has not been interfered with is extraneous.
And yet you have no knowledge of what a right is so your assertions are vacuous.
AJ: Neither does Interpretation 2 imply Interpretation 1. Below I explain from yet another perspective how this is fatal for Hoppe's claim: AJ: 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 presupposing 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. In order to refute the above, one must argue that mere presupposition of the fact of "each other's exclusive control over such resources" (Interpretation 1) is not enough to avoid contradiction. One must argue that presupposition of additional norms or rights is required to avoid falling into a contradiction. One must articulate why the argument would be contradictory without that addition.
Still waiting...
AJ:I contend that there are no examples. To simply engage in argumentation, the additional requirement to recognize a "right" not to be interfered with beyond mere recognition of the fact that someone has not been interfered with is extraneous.
Ok I think I might see what you are saying, but correct me if I'm wrong. You are not saying that: arguing -> non interference is a contradiction, but that arguing can stand on its own without the non interference part. Are you equating "right" with axiom in this usage? Its not only a fact that someone has not been interfered with, but also that the arguer in the act or arguing recognizes the self ownership of the other arguers.
you must presuppose that you have no right to be violent to innocents as a preconditioning to rationally arguing.
if you dont make that presupposition then you can be arguing, like two drunks argue in the street, but you wont be rationally arguing. and the truth of propositional claims is tested in argument. in order to test arguments as a collaborative venture with ones peers, the peers must not be aggressed, to say otherwise is to admit that a rationally argument could be had in the face of coercion. the right of not aggressing them must be extended to them in order torationally argue with them. its only in the forum of rationally arguing that the truth of propositional claims is tested.. as such you will find only libertarian 'doctrines' will not fall foul of the presuppositions necessary to be rationally arguing. as such the norms which are fundamental to the task of making rational argument possible can be positively stated in that forum, whilst their opposed doctrines can not be maintained, thus the norms can be put on a more generic footing, they universally apply.
example. if i say im going to ostensibly 'argue' with you about the truth of morality, or any such thing, yet i have a gun in my pocket. and i think theres nothing wrong in my killing you if i want to. and in fact, i have decided that if i dont like the way the time passes as we swap words that i am going to blow you away, this should demonstrate that whilst you were 'ape'ing argument with me, whilst restraining yourself (at least up to the point where you no longer restrained yourself), you were not rationally arguing. you could only have been rationally arguing if you had extended me some fundamental (moral) courtesy. it is a precondition to rational argument
I may be doing Hoppe a disservice in my laymans interpretation/statement of the theory. I acknowledge this.
nirgrahamUK:I may be doing Hoppe a disservice in my laymans interpretation/statement of the theory. I acknowledge this.
I've listened to and read it about 50 times, and I still can't reiterate it in a satisfactory way.
notice these three are the same but said in differing forms:
wilderness: And yet you have no knowledge of what a right is so your assertions are vacuous. (replace you for any person)
twistedbydsign99: Its not only a fact that someone has not been interfered with, but also that the arguer in the act or arguing recognizes the self ownership of the other arguers. (I said this in the negative)
nirgrahamUK: you could only have been rationally arguing if you had extended me some fundamental (moral) courtesy. it is a precondition to rational argument (and thus no intellectual knowledge gained)
This is false. I could concievably believe that I do have a right to be violent to innocents, proceed to peacefully argue with you without particularly having the will to be violent to you at the moment, and argue for that very premise in the process. There is nothing inherent about the act of argumentation itself that means that I presuppose the very norms that you have to argue for yourself. You have to provide a legitimate argument for why it is not right to be violent to innocents - it is not demonstrated to be true by the fact that people aren't violent to eachother when they argue.
and yet what you argue is irrational - that life negates life... that A is not-A...
you love to protect that child violence of yours, what are you holding in that bag?
You have to provide a legitimate argument for why it is not right to be violent to innocents
I have not argued that "life negates life" or that "a is not a". That's an invalid analogy.
I'm not "protecting" violence, I'm merely rejecting a *particular argument*.
Juan:You have to provide a legitimate argument for why it is not right to be violent to innocents No. You have to provide a legitimate argument for why it is right to be violent to innocents.
Either premise requires a legitimate argument. Neither can be assumed to be true by virtue of the nature of argueing itself.
Brainpolice: and yet what you argue is irrational - that life negates life... that A is not-A... I have not argued that "life negates life" or that "a is not a". That's an invalid analogy.
yes you have. you argue that a person that is alive, thus is life, negates (kills) another person... you are arguing from the position called a murderer.
Brainpolice: you love to protect that child violence of yours, what are you holding in that bag? I'm not "protecting" violence, I'm merely rejecting a *particular argument*.
and replacing it with an argument that advocates violence