General

Re: Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Stances of Prominent Austrians

AdrianHealey — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:32:52 GMT

Pretty sure David Gordon does not agree with Hoppe's argumentation ethics. But he doesn't commentate on it directly anywhere in writing, as far as I know.

Re: Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Stances of Prominent Austrians

AdrianHealey — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:30:51 GMT

For the record, Van Dun has a (slightly) different Argumentation Ethics then Hoppe. And Van Dun doesn't directly defends Hoppe's argumentation ethics.

Don't ask me for the differences; not an expert. I just go by what Van Dun says himself.

Re: Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Stances of Prominent Austrians

Neodoxy — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 02:46:08 GMT

"Because you need to appeal to shared premises to justify your proposition. When we begin a discussion the only shared premises are the a priori of argumentation, which includes the concept of ownership. You would have to create a new premise to justify your proposition. But a premise that justifies involuntary expropriation would contradict premises you already accepted implicitly."

But this is not referring to what I want ownership to be. I acknowledge that you own yourself, but this does not mean that I agree that all private property rights are legitimate, merely that self ownership is the case between myself and yourself. Once gain I don't see how I am breaking any premises here. Once again as you have stated, an ought cannot give us an is, so I can argue that property should belong to the collective and I have violated nothing.

Re: Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Stances of Prominent Austrians

Malachi — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:14:48 GMT

Because you need to appeal to shared premises to justify your proposition. When we begin a discussion the only shared premises are the a priori of argumentation, which includes the concept of ownership. You would have to create a new premise to justify your proposition. But a premise that justifies involuntary expropriation would contradict premises you already accepted implicitly.

Re: Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Stances of Prominent Austrians

Neodoxy — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 05:58:17 GMT

"If we are engaged in discourse and you propose that my property be transferred to you, then that statement cannot be justified"

Why not?

"By AE I mean argumentation ethics which is only concerned with what ethical propositions are justifiable through discourse."

Ooooh right. Unfortunate coincidence of acronyms there...

Re: Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Stances of Prominent Austrians

Malachi — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 05:17:13 GMT

As a description of your own desires, youre consistent. If we are engaged in discourse and you propose that my property be transferred to you, then that statement cannot be justified. By AE I mean argumentation ethics which is only concerned with what ethical propositions are justifiable through discourse.

Re: Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Stances of Prominent Austrians

Neodoxy — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 05:11:43 GMT

What does AE have to do with it? And how am I being logically inconsistent if I say that I want to prevent you from accumulating property/confiscate your property to instate full communism?

Re: Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Stances of Prominent Austrians

Malachi — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 05:06:54 GMT

They dont. If you dont care about being logically consistent, then AE has nothing for you.

Re: Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Stances of Prominent Austrians

Neodoxy — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 04:59:56 GMT

And how does the shared traits of self ownership between you and I lead me to accept libertarianism if I find it unappealing?

Re: Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Stances of Prominent Austrians

Malachi — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 04:26:14 GMT

I concede that it is physically possible to violate one's rights however I dont see you attempting to justify it through argument. The fact that communism is appealing to you doesnt imply anything for me, and so I wasnt persuaded. And I think you know that

given: a) communism is appealing to Neodoxy

it does not follow that:

b) everyone should adopt communism.

if you attempted to justify it I think you would discover that your premises (that would lead to communism) would contradict the a priori of argumentation.

Re: Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Stances of Prominent Austrians

Neodoxy — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 04:10:20 GMT

"You haven't attempted to justify your proposition. In order to do so, you must appeal to shared premises. The only premises we share are those implicit in discourse. Hence, self-ownership. Why should we have full communism?"

So if we're back to this, then what has been proven by argumentation ethics? If I say, for instance "because it is the more appealing system to myself" and I then force you to adopt full communism, then what have I violated? If I convince you of this then it clearly works no matter what rights actually are since that would imply voluntary action, but you have not demonstrated why we should not have full communism.

Re: Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Stances of Prominent Austrians

Malachi — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 04:03:58 GMT

You havent attempted to justify your proposition. In order to do so, you must appeal to shared premises. The only premises we share are those implicit in discourse. Hence, self-ownership. Why should we have full communism?

Re: Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Stances of Prominent Austrians

Neodoxy — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 03:24:07 GMT

Why is the proposition incoherent? We can say that it's impossible for one to cede their self ownership, but everything else in the world is clearly alienable from them; so what have I contradicted by arguing that we should have full communism and he is forced to do things and he can't control property?

Re: Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Stances of Prominent Austrians

Malachi — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 03:20:15 GMT

The desire isnt contradictory. The proposition is incoherent. You can want whatever you want, but justifying the claim to what you want is more difficult.

Re: Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: Stances of Prominent Austrians

Neodoxy — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 03:18:14 GMT

But then why is it contradictory to wish to override their self ownership?