wilderness:yes you have. you argue that a person that is alive, thus is life, negates (kills) another person... you are arguing from that position.
wilderness:and replacing it with an argument that advocates violence
I haven't seen anything of his arguing such positions nor advocating violence at all.
Brainpolice: I could concievably believe that I do have a right to be violent to innocents
I could concievably believe that I do have a right to be violent to innocents
what's in the bag?
you must presuppose that you have no right to be violent to innocents as a preconditioning to rationally arguing.
Brainpolice:This is false.
twistedbydsign99: 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.
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.
Actually, I'm saying "presupposition of the fact of non-interference" does not imply "presupposition of the right of non-interference."
twistedbydsign99:Are you equating "right" with axiom in this usage?
Normally I would ask for a definition of "right," but in this case "presupposition the fact of non-interference" is fully sufficient for engaging in discourse, so that by virtually any conceivable definition of "right" what I am saying would still be accurate. However, if someone can define "right" so as to rescue Hoppe's argument, I am all ears.
For a simple example of why argumentation ethics (as presented in Hoppe's quote in this thread) is invalid, imagine the following scenario.
A man in a wheelchair with a megaphone says, "There are no 'rights' not to be interfered with. Everyone should compete to get their words out the fastest, before someone can interfere with them." His opponent (Hoppe) is 1 mile away, also speaking on a megaphone. The man does not recognize Hoppe's right not to be interfered with, but he does recognize that Hoppe has spoken without interference, hears what he says, and continues disagreeing.Is the man committing a performative contradiction? No! He's not even being hypocritical. He is stating his argument, and whether he tries to violate Hoppe's "rights" or not doesn't even matter for at least as long as it takes him to reach Hoppe - say 15 minutes on his wheelchair. And we may just as well posit that he doesn't make any effort to violate Hoppe's "rights," because there's really no reason why non-recognition of a "right" would imply any inclination to violate said "right."Of course, there is really no need to bring in the wheelchair or the distance, because an argument can be over and done with in seconds between arguors seated across a room, but I hope it drives home how broken Hoppe's theory is.
If anyone is still not convinced, consider another example:
3000 years ago, somehow writing appeared in the stars for all to see, and that writing coincidentally detailed exactly Hoppe's own theory of rights.
According to Hoppe, his own theory of rights would not be "justified" until someone actually freely agreed with it and stated such and everyone recognized that he had a right not to be interfered with while voicing his agreement. Hence Hoppean "justification" amounts to nothing more than an appeal to agreement fallacy. In fact, if no one ever spoke of it, perhaps out of reverence to the majesty of his amazing theory written in the stars, but followed his theory of rights anyway, the theory would still not be "justified" by Hoppe's standards. Hoppe apparently fails to realize that the source of an idea does not determine its validity.
Why anarchy fails
AJ: Normally I would ask for a definition of "right,"
Normally I would ask for a definition of "right,"
of course cause you don't have any knowledge to say otherwise.
your wheelchair man is not rationally arguing. you are just revealing that you arent familiar with the crucial difference between ostensibly arguing and rationally arguing.
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
nirgrahamUK: your wheelchair man is not rationally arguing. you are just revealing that you arent familiar with the crucial difference between ostensibly arguing and rationally arguing.
AJ likes to argue from the perspective of the person that doesn't know anything and he's that person but I hope not to the degree he likes to egg on
Go on. Articulate your case.
AJ: nirgrahamUK: your wheelchair man is not rationally arguing. you are just revealing that you arent familiar with the crucial difference between ostensibly arguing and rationally arguing. Go on. Articulate your case.
why cause you can't?
first i will show you an argument that i think even you will grant is not a rational argument.
''hey buddy, your team can't play for shit!"
"fuck do you know about sport asshole!?"
they then procede to hit each other with barstools.
ostensibly there is an argument. a dispute as to the performance ability of a group of men in shorts, relative to other similar groups of men
they are not rationally arguing it. the point at stake is not being debated. the violence present gives lie to the pretense that they are 'arguing' .
if rather the dialogue went, ''hey buddy i respectfully disagree, do you know they won 5 out of their last 6 games, a better streak than anyone else so far in the season"
"oh you think? golly, well, i tend to discount that, since observing last years performance, i percieved their last 5 matches to have been against teams with a poor performance record, personally my money is on x..."
and on it goes. actually rationally arguing.
Juan:No. My premise doesn't require an argument. If you think that crime is morally justified prove it.
If you think it is a crime prove it.
AJ:Hence Hoppean "justification" amounts to nothing more than an appeal to agreement fallacy.
No, Hoppe is clear that its a negative proof. it obviously is. therefore . there is no agreement fallacy. you could call it the impossibility of formulating a coherend disagreement. i.o.w. the appeal is not to agreement, the appeal is to the impossibility of disagreement. (this entails that there can be agreement, but we arent merely reliant on counting 'agre-ers' to prove the point)
scineram:If you think it is a crime prove it.
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."
scineram: Juan:No. My premise doesn't require an argument. If you think that crime is morally justified prove it. If you think it is a crime prove it.
nirgrahamUK: they are not rationally arguing it. the point at stake is not being debated. the violence present gives lie to the pretense that they are 'arguing' . know, if they, ''hey buddy i respectfully disagree, do you know they won 5 out of their last 6 games, a better streak than anyone else so far in the season" "oh you think? golly, well, i tend to discount that, since observing last years performance, i percieved their last 5 matches to have been against teams with a poor performance record, personally my money is on x..." and on it goes. actually rationally arguing.
know, if they, ''hey buddy i respectfully disagree, do you know they won 5 out of their last 6 games, a better streak than anyone else so far in the season"
I understand what you mean by ostensibly arguing vs. rationally arguing. Thank you. However,
1. Why cannot the man in the wheelchair be rationally arguing? If he does indeed intend to interfere with Hoppe's free speech, that would be one thing, but suppose he has no such intention or even inclination. That is, suppose he said, "There are no 'rights' not to be interfered with. Everyone can - if they want to - compete to get their words out the fastest, before someone can interfere with them." And what of this, which I wrote immediately after: [And we may just as well posit that he doesn't make any effort to violate Hoppe's "rights," because there's really no reason why non-recognition of a "right" would imply any inclination to violate said "right."]
2. Or, if this is the point of contention, why not take my second example where there is clearly no violence at play?
Our point it is not a proof as there is no performative contradiction.
Even if there was that is still not proof.
i can prove it to scineram assuming that he will rationally argue with me........ of course, this will presuppose no initiatory aggression against me, and anything he says within the rational argument that is supposed to constitute part of the rational argument will have to be congruent with this presupposition.
but that's not cause I'm especially talented. lol,I think any of you could do it....
Juan: scineram:If you think it is a crime prove it. Crimes are crimes. That's why they are called crimes. I hope you get it now.
Tax evasion, traffiking, prostitution you mean?
we can prove that those are not crimes.
but you cannot prove that killing innocents is not crime
do you have a solid grasp on crime or is it something you struggle with? Im curious if this is Advocatus Diaboli or if you are a thorough skeptic, that maybe isnt sure that you are even you ?
scineram it's all an illusion
AJ:2. Or, if this is the point of contention, why not take my second example where there is clearly no violence at play?
help me , pick out the example? im lost in the text....
Shaniqua: why cause you can't? can u?
can u?
lol
nirgrahamUK: AJ:Hence Hoppean "justification" amounts to nothing more than an appeal to agreement fallacy. No, Hoppe is clear that its a negative proof. it obviously is. therefore . there is no agreement fallacy. you could call it the impossibility of formulating a coherend disagreement. i.o.w. the appeal is not to agreement, the appeal is to the impossibility of disagreement. (this entails that there can be agreement, but we arent merely reliant on counting 'agre-ers' to prove the point)
I'm not saying his proof is an appeal to agreement fallacy; I'm saying his notion of "justification" is. Also, the impossibility of disagreement is not in itself a useful proof. For example, it's impossible to logically disagree with the following sentence:
"Everyone has the right to whqhwhhqwy eroigve oynjotiyn." (incoherent argument)
Even if someone said, "It is not the case that everyone has the right to whqhwhhqwy eroigve oynjotiyn," they would not be making a logical utterance, hence not a logical disagreement. If Hoppe's equivocation I demonstrated before renders his argument incoherent, it would be impossible to logically disagree with it, but that wouldn't be saying anything for his case.
nirgrahamUK: AJ:2. Or, if this is the point of contention, why not take my second example where there is clearly no violence at play? help me , pick out the example? im lost in the text....
AJ:"Everyone has the right to whqhwhhqwy eroigve oynjotiyn." (incoherent argument) Even if someone said, "It is not the case that everyone has the right to whqhwhhqwy eroigve oynjotiyn," they would not be making a logical utterance, hence not a logical disagreement.
Even if someone said, "It is not the case that everyone has the right to whqhwhhqwy eroigve oynjotiyn," they would not be making a logical utterance, hence not a logical disagreement.
AJ:According to Hoppe, his own theory of rights would not be "justified" until someone actually freely agreed with it and stated such and everyone recognized that he had a right not to be interfered with while voicing his agreement. Hence Hoppean "justification" amounts to nothing more than an appeal to agreement fallacy. In fact, if no one ever spoke of it, perhaps out of reverence to the majesty of his amazing theory written in the stars, but followed his theory of rights anyway, the theory would still not be "justified" by Hoppe's standards. Hoppe apparently fails to realize that the source of an idea does not determine its validity.
i address your supposed agreement fallacy already ....
as for the idea that we could be living in a different universe where no-one was arguing rationally so the topic of what is morally possible never came up. so what? in a world of no moral agents, no one would be morally aggressing in that world. its not a problem for libertarians. does not harm the theory. it is congruent with moral agency, and a rationally capacity being important to morality, and to rational thinking.
nirgrahamUK: AJ:"Everyone has the right to whqhwhhqwy eroigve oynjotiyn." (incoherent argument) Even if someone said, "It is not the case that everyone has the right to whqhwhhqwy eroigve oynjotiyn," they would not be making a logical utterance, hence not a logical disagreement.you can't logically disagree with it , or agree with it. its pure nonsense. it misses the point. it doesn't help make your case.
I am saying that if Hoppe is equivocating as I demonstrated before, his argument is in effect nonsense, hence no one can logically disagree or - yes - agree with it. The above example was just an illustration of why Hoppe's "impossibility of logical disagreement" is not enough for his purposes.
'if he is'.........you didnt demonstrate he was equivocating. i demonstrated he wasn't.
oh well, we will have to agree to disagree. this feels like its run its course
nirgrahamUK: AJ:According to Hoppe, his own theory of rights would not be "justified" until someone actually freely agreed with it and stated such and everyone recognized that he had a right not to be interfered with while voicing his agreement. Hence Hoppean "justification" amounts to nothing more than an appeal to agreement fallacy. In fact, if no one ever spoke of it, perhaps out of reverence to the majesty of his amazing theory written in the stars, but followed his theory of rights anyway, the theory would still not be "justified" by Hoppe's standards. Hoppe apparently fails to realize that the source of an idea does not determine its validity. i address your supposed agreement fallacy already .... as for the idea that we could be living in a different universe where no-one was arguing rationally so the topic of what is morally possible never came up. so what? in a world of no moral agents, no one would be morally aggressing in that world. its not a problem for libertarians. does not harm the theory. it is congruent with moral agency, and a rationally capacity being important to morality, and to rational thinking.
I construe this to mean that you reject the "writing in the stars" example as contrived. How about we take an example closer to home, like these forums. To (slightly) strawman Jacob Bloom, he said, "Might makes right." Is your position
(a) Jacob was not rationally arguing, but only ostensibly arguing? (by your definitions above)
(b) Jacob was rationally arguing, but committing a performative contradiction? (If so, how?)
(c) Jacob was actually implicitly recognizing everyone else's right to speak without interference? (If so, how do you know?)
or
(d) something else?
nirgrahamUK: 'if he is'.........you didnt demonstrate he was equivocating. i demonstrated he wasn't. oh well, we will have to agree to disagree. this feels like its run its course
no-mind, no-mind... there is no mind, ah!
nirgrahamUK:'if he is'.........you didnt demonstrate he was equivocating. i demonstrated he wasn't.
You said he was using Interpretation 2 throughout, but you didn't show how that would make his groundwork statements earlier in the quote make sense.
I do agree, though, that for now enough has been said. I would be happy to address any other (fully articulated) objections from anyone else. I would like to believe something like AE is possible, but I reason that it is not. If someone can convince me otherwise, I would certainly be delighted.
AJ: I do agree, though, that for now enough has been said. I would be happy to address any other (fully articulated) objections from anyone else. I would like to believe something like AE is possible, but I reason that it is not. If someone can convince me otherwise, I would certainly be delighted.
it would take a rational person to rationally argue and intellectually apprehend anything, but you deny the mind and can't articulate anything on your own - you hold that position. Soon you'll be advocating violence like sceniram and BP. It's one slippery sophism into skepticism - all is an illusion AJ, it's all an illusion.
Angurse: wilderness:yes you have. you argue that a person that is alive, thus is life, negates (kills) another person... you are arguing from that position. wilderness:and replacing it with an argument that advocates violence I haven't seen anything of his arguing such positions nor advocating violence at all.
I'm not. I support the NAP. I'm rejecting argumentation ethics as a jusitifcation for the NAP. If wilderness is too tunnel-visioned to understand that distinction, then that's his problem.
wilderness: Brainpolice: I could concievably believe that I do have a right to be violent to innocents what's in the bag?
Precisely. This is a very obvious distinction.
A man in a wheelchair with a megaphone says, "There are no 'rights' not to be interfered with. Everyone should compete to get their words out the fastest, before someone can interfere with them." His opponent (Hoppe) is 1 mile away, also speaking on a megaphone. The man does not recognize Hoppe's right not to be interfered with, but he does recognize that Hoppe has spoken without interference, hears what he says, and continues disagreeing.Is the man committing a performative contradiction? No! He's not even being hypocritical. He is stating his argument, and whether he tries to violate Hoppe's "rights" or not doesn't even matter for at least as long as it takes him to reach Hoppe - say 15 minutes on his wheelchair. And we may just as well posit that he doesn't make any effort to violate Hoppe's "rights," because there's really no reason why non-recognition of a "right" would imply any inclination to violate said "right."
Exactly! This is what I've been trying to point out the entire time. This example demonstrates the point fairly well.
cording to Hoppe, his own theory of rights would not be "justified" until someone actually freely agreed with it and stated such and everyone recognized that he had a right not to be interfered with while voicing his agreement. Hence Hoppean "justification" amounts to nothing more than an appeal to agreement fallacy. In fact, if no one ever spoke of it, perhaps out of reverence to the majesty of his amazing theory written in the stars, but followed his theory of rights anyway, the theory would still not be "justified" by Hoppe's standards. Hoppe apparently fails to realize that the source of an idea does not determine its validity.
Thankyou!
nirgrahamUK:we can prove that those are not crimes.
Please proceed!
scineram: nirgrahamUK:we can prove that those are not crimes. Please proceed!
it's all an illusion scineram, all an illusion
Brainpolice: I support the NAP.
BP: AJ: Acording to Hoppe, his own theory of rights would not be "justified" until someone actually freely agreed with it and stated such and everyone recognized that he had a right not to be interfered with while voicing his agreement. Hence Hoppean "justification" amounts to nothing more than an appeal to agreement fallacy. In fact, if no one ever spoke of it, perhaps out of reverence to the majesty of his amazing theory written in the stars, but followed his theory of rights anyway, the theory would still not be "justified" by Hoppe's standards. Hoppe apparently fails to realize that the source of an idea does not determine its validity. Thankyou!
AJ: Acording to Hoppe, his own theory of rights would not be "justified" until someone actually freely agreed with it and stated such and everyone recognized that he had a right not to be interfered with while voicing his agreement. Hence Hoppean "justification" amounts to nothing more than an appeal to agreement fallacy. In fact, if no one ever spoke of it, perhaps out of reverence to the majesty of his amazing theory written in the stars, but followed his theory of rights anyway, the theory would still not be "justified" by Hoppe's standards. Hoppe apparently fails to realize that the source of an idea does not determine its validity.
Juan: BP: AJ: Acording to Hoppe, his own theory of rights would not be "justified" until someone actually freely agreed with it and stated such and everyone recognized that he had a right not to be interfered with while voicing his agreement. Hence Hoppean "justification" amounts to nothing more than an appeal to agreement fallacy. In fact, if no one ever spoke of it, perhaps out of reverence to the majesty of his amazing theory written in the stars, but followed his theory of rights anyway, the theory would still not be "justified" by Hoppe's standards. Hoppe apparently fails to realize that the source of an idea does not determine its validity. Thankyou! AJ is hardly different from Anarcho-Mercantilist and his endless semantic quibbles. Is that the route you are going now ?
No, but in this particular case, AJ is absolutely right.