Political Theory

Re: Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

liberty student — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:17:19 GMT

ERO is going to dash Lilburne's position on rocks with one sentence. Or so he claims.

Re: Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

scineram — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:13:08 GMT

Will there be debate? Between who?

Re: Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

E. R. Olovetto — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 02:47:56 GMT

Bump for the upcoming debate on this topic =)

Re: Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

John Scott — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:53:04 GMT

AJ:

John Scott:

AJ:

What do you claim were the grounds for my self-ownership in the first place?

Your assertion of self ownership coupled with my recognition of that self ownership in exchange for your recognition of my similar claim to self ownership.

That sounds pretty good. I don't think that is quite what AE is saying, but this article seems to take a very similar approach. (It's about IP, but the real meat of it is near the end when he talks about implicit contracts between people engaged in a joint action.) I think you may find Schaefer's argument interesting.

Looks like an interesting article. Thanks!

Re: Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

AJ — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:50:09 GMT

John Scott:

AJ:

What do you claim were the grounds for my self-ownership in the first place?

Your assertion of self ownership coupled with my recognition of that self ownership in exchange for your recognition of my similar claim to self ownership.

That sounds pretty good. I don't think that is quite what AE is saying, but this article seems to take a very similar approach. (It's about IP, but the real meat of it is near the end when he talks about implicit contracts between people engaged in a joint action.) I think you may find Schaefer's argument interesting.

Re: Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

John Scott — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:37:33 GMT

AJ:

What do you claim were the grounds for my self-ownership in the first place?

Your assertion of self ownership coupled with my recognition of that self ownership in exchange for your recognition of my similar claim to self ownership.

Re: Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

AJ — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:32:43 GMT

John Scott:
But if you deny self ownership to somebody who has granted you the same, you have lost the grounds for your own self ownership and your own self ownership evaporates like so much morning mist.

What do you claim were the grounds for my self-ownership in the first place?

Re: Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

John Scott — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:55:51 GMT

AJ:

I can deny self-ownership for another person, but assert it for myself. Nothing illogical about that.

You can deny self ownership for another person. I highly recommend you do so. Why would you grant self ownership to somebody who hasn't granted you the same?

But if you deny self ownership to somebody who has granted you the same, you have lost the grounds for your own self ownership and your own self ownership evaporates like so much morning mist.

Re: Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

AJ — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:47:29 GMT

This thread is pretty long, but all the answers are in there and in the other one I linked. Here're the short answers:

John Scott:
The problem is can you deny self ownership while at the same time asserting a claim that you have a right to be free? In essence, the question is, can you deny self ownership while at the same time asserting self ownership?

The question is not, as you seem to think, whether or not somebody can deny self ownership. We can all do that. The problem is denying self ownership while at the same time asserting self ownership.

I can deny self-ownership for another person, but assert it for myself. Nothing illogical about that.

John Scott:
Note that it is not unethical to be guilty of a performative contraction, it's just illogical.

Even if this were true, so what? A thief may performatively contradict himself. Does some harm befall him?

Re: Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

John Scott — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:35:22 GMT

Which bit do you wish to invoke?Sorry, I'd rather not assume you are arguing one thing when in fact you are arguing another.

Thanks.

Re: Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

AJ — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:32:27 GMT

Ah, I see. In that case, this has been covered before.

Re: Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

John Scott — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:17:55 GMT

AJ:

John Scott:
You cannot deny self ownership while at the same time complaining about your self ownership being impinged upon.

Well I obviously can deny it (it's physically possible), so I assume you mean that I cannot rightfully deny it. But you've said you reject ethics, so I'm confused as to what you're saying.

As I said, justification is act of providing a rational basis for an argument. Not practical. When somebody says "you cannot say that 2+2+5!," he isn't saying that you are somehow prevented from physically uttering those words. He's saying that you cannot do so rationally.

You can of course deny NAP. You did and you do. The problem is can you deny self ownership while at the same time asserting a claim that you have a right to be free? In essence, the question is, can you deny self ownership while at the same time asserting self ownership?

The question is not, as you seem to think, whether or not somebody can deny self ownership. We can all do that. The problem is denying self ownership while at the same time asserting self ownership.

And, in regard to ethics, yes, I reject ethics. The divorce of laws from ethics. Note that it is not unethical to be guilty of a performative contraction, it's just illogical.

Re: Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

AJ — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:12:08 GMT

John Scott:
You cannot deny self ownership while at the same time complaining about your self ownership being impinged upon.

Well I obviously can deny it (it's physically possible), so I assume you mean that I cannot rightfully deny it. But you've said you reject ethics, so I'm confused as to what you're saying.

Re: Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

John Scott — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:03:06 GMT

AJ:

But basically what you've done here..

...is announce that you will treat those who don't recognize your right to self-ownership differently from those who do. The idea of AE, I believe, is to justify that different-treatment.

Yes, I will first announce my NAP. Then I justify it. Do you know what justify means? It is to provide a rational basis for a theory. The rational basis for the enforcement of NAP is that it is axiomatic. You cannot deny self ownership while at the same time complaining about your self ownership being impinged upon.

Re: Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

AJ — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:52:55 GMT

But basically what you've done here:

John Scott:

So we say, hey, I want a right to self ownership so I am going to assert that right, and invite you to assert a similar right. By asserting the right, and having others consent to that right, the right is established.That's the nature of rights - they are social constructs.

Now you say, "no, I don't have to recognize your right to self ownership." That's true. You don't. But then that rejection of self ownership boomerangs back on you, and you're fair game.

...is announce that you will treat those who don't recognize your right to self-ownership differently from those who do. The idea of AE, I believe, is to justify that different-treatment.