Arguing in favor of the state is itself a concession. In claiming that one ought to admit to a state, there is an implicit valuation of choice; that one ought to choose the state over alternatives. Statists who advocate this sort of voluntary state fall into the anarchist camp, even if they don't realize it.I.e. saying that one ought to give up their freedoms to a monopoly power presupposes that each individual has legitimate self ownership. The only ground left for statists is for the involuntary state: that a state should be imposed on people whether they like it or not and their opinions dont matter. It seems to me, that if one's opinion doesn't matter, then you can never make an argument for the involuntary state since it doesn't matter what we end up believing.I.e. the involuntary state should persist whether we can justify it or not. But if something has no justification I don't know how you can advocate it. Thoughts? Please be harsh. Don't take my side just b/c im an anarchist :P. This is a realization I had while dreaming and may be complete hogwash and/or just the tip of the iceberg for some larger theory. Cheers mises people!
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
Snowflake:I.e. saying that one ought to give up their freedoms to a monopoly power presupposes that each individual has legitimate self ownership.
I may be biased myself, but it seems like a 'narrower' restatement of Hoppean Argumentation Ethics.
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:I may be biased myself, but it seems like a 'narrower' restatement of Hoppean Argumentation Ethics.
Whether it is logically coherent or not, pointing out performative contradictions (or what seems to be a performative contradiction) with rhetoric is a super effective means of challenging the other party to dig deeper into their understanding and check their premises.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
following Habermas' lead Hoppe asks, when people justify and argue, do they necessarily presuppose any particular norms or not? he asks whether the issue of whether initiated violence is justifiable or not is to be known or decided by a process of argument? or not? if so..., the knowledge of what the norms of argumentation are would surely help shed light on whether what is asserted within that particular debate is contradictory or is in fact admissible as a plausibly tenable argument.
nirgrahamUK:following Habermas' lead Hoppe asks, when people justify and argue, do they necessarily presuppose any particular norms or not? he asks whether the issue of whether initiated violence is justifiable or not is to be known or decided by a process of argument? or not? if so..., the knowledge of what the norms of argumentation are would surely help shed light on whether what is asserted within that particular debate is contradictory or is in fact admissible as a plausibly tenable argument.
its like marmite, love it or hate it. those that hate it object to the idea that there are any such norms. they find it plausible that you can have a rational argument even if your presuppose that one person is violent to the other. i think they confuse the superficial motions and behaviours that are associated with everyday 'arguments' with the concept of a rational argument. I'm sure if we keep talking they will be led to speak for themselves instead of having me strawman them
Personally I like the sort of statist that rilles about some states being fundamentally illegitimate and impossible to back. A nationlist rilling up against an empire, a democrat rilling up against a dictatorship, a republican rilling up against a monarchy, a secularist rilling up against a theocracy...
i like it. it's intellectually sound. Beautifully cuts to the chase. Argumentation, being a species of human action, is axiomatic of the deliberate animal that wanders upon this earthly realm.
P.S. I've been wondering about the avatar and then in "The Sound of Her Wings" of Sandman (volume one) I saw it the other day.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
wilderness:P.S. I've been wondering about the avatar and then in "The Sound of Her Wings" of Sandman (volume one) I saw it the other day.
Snowflake:Arguing in favor of the state is itself a concession. In claiming that one ought to admit to a state, there is an implicit valuation of choice; that one ought to choose the state over alternatives. Statists who advocate this sort of voluntary state fall into the anarchist camp, even if they don't realize it.
This is a good insight, but the Statist can still get out of it by saying, "If you decide to support the State, you'll be in the majority with us and we can coerce everyone else into it. Down with voluntary choice!" (consequential argument) or, "We should try to get a preponderance of people to support the State, because then we can coerce the everyone else into it for their own good. Down with voluntary choice except for those who agree with us*!" (moral argument).
*Note that this is also the position of objective ethicists such as Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty (coincidence?).
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
AJ:*Note that this is also the position of objective ethicists such as Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty (coincidence?).
ridiculous
I think AJ has made a very interesting observation.
I've heard Rothbard's position (apparently) and the Statist's, what is AJ's I wonder?
I think it's pretty clear.
is it?
AJ: *Note that this is also the position of objective ethicists such as Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty (coincidence?).
absurd. lol
Note: Now that you have derailed the thread for your own personal up-chuck. start a new thread or something?
My view: If somebody commits a crime (violates Natural Law) on my property either I, or a private detective, insurance agency, or a PDA will be enforcing self-defense. If the criminal isn't signed up or states they don't like Natural Law their loss cause I do and they violated it.
AJ: Down with voluntary choice except for those who agree with us*!" (moral argument). *Note that this is also the position of objective ethicists such as Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty (coincidence?).
Down with voluntary choice except for those who agree with us*!" (moral argument).
Here Rothbard writes:
"...the basic Law Code (requiring that no one invade any one else’s person and property) would have to be agreed upon by all the judicial agencies."
This looks pretty open and shut.
My own position? It is simply to point out that there is no higher authority to enforce any such agreement unless there is a monopoly, so I find this kind of statement and the conception it holds for society to be firmly rooted in the old monopoly paradigm in terms of both its logic and its import. Without monopoly, no person or group any longer gets to declare rules for all to follow - even libertarian ones. If we are consistent, I believe we can merely theorize (however credible such theories may be) that libertarian rules would be tended toward in the absence of monopoly.
In fairness, Rothbard elsewhere seems to acknowledge that the market will decide the rules, and in passing states, "Any agencies that transgressed the basic libertarian code would be open outlaws and aggressors, and Nozick himself concedes that, lacking legitimacy, such outlaw agencies would probably not do very well in an anarchist society." In the last clause of that sentence it seems clear that he understands the issue I mentioned, yet previously in the same paragraph he seems to contradict it. Why is another question, but I think the matter is clear enough: either you want private courts to decide the law or you don't. As liberty student is fond of saying, you can't have it both ways. That is why, even if objective ethics could be "proven," I don't see how it would be relevant outside a monopoly context.
As for the topicality of this, I'd say this is right on topic (how to win over and debate with Statists). If we bring an argument rooted in a monopoly paradigm to a pro-monopolist (a Statist), they're going to shoot it full of holes, or at least they will sense something fishy in it.
private courts decide the workings of libertarian law, rules of admissibility of evidence etc., plus, they would create law tailored for their customers (mutual subscribers), but the NAP is universal, any PDA or private law court that breaks the NAP is necessarily criminal, its reasonable to think NAP abiding libertarian agencies would recognize the ones that are not as criminal. and no, this does not require monopoly....
nirgrahamUK: its reasonable to think NAP abiding libertarian agencies would recognize the ones that are not as criminal. and no, this does not require monopoly....
its reasonable to think NAP abiding libertarian agencies would recognize the ones that are not as criminal. and no, this does not require monopoly....
I agree with this, but this just comes back to the conjecture that enough of the private courts would be 100% NAP-abiding to ensure that the resulting "common law" conventions would be fully in accord with the NAP. It's educated conjecture, but conjecture all the same. It's an educated guess about consumer preferences and the institutions they will support; it's not universal edict (unless and until such common law conventions are firmly in place, in which case it would be de facto universal, but I don't think that's what you're arguing).
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap