(Bang, bang, Maxwell’s silver hammer…)

I didn’t mean that libertarianism (or liberalism in the classical sense) can truly be objectively based on either argumentation ethics or natural rights theory. I simply meant that, if we tried to base liberalism on either foundation, and those foundations were undermined (which I believe they can be), our opponents could then say that liberalism has been intellectually demolished and should be thrown on the scrap heap of history.

In other words, I agree with you, for the most part.

It’s not. It’s founded on the personal preferences of liberals (in the classical sense), which are best satisfied by a truly free market.

“”How could you reject arg. ethics or nat. rights — if you do, we’re left with nothing of substance.” That may be so, but the potential repercussions of their rejection should not be grounds for us to cling to them for dear life.”

Exactly. What if libertarianism is founded on argumentation ethics and natural rights? What then happens if somebody comes along with the idea that arguing with someone doesn’t necessarily presuppose they have rights, or rediscovers the naturalistic fallacy? Then your bases are demolished, and the structure on top of the foundation comes crashing down, too.

This sounds more like Thomas Hobbes than argumentation ethics to me.

Yes, and it made him split his sides laughing.

Mises is pointing out the inherent hypocrisy here by restating the following principle: non facias malum ut inde fiat bonum

If argumentation ethics is essentially the logical deconstruction of complex hypocrisy, this can properly be seen as such.

“So are we reduced to, “Hey, sure, you want to be a thug and get your way through violence. That’s just your thing, though. It’s not cool with me. Plus, it’s super inconvenient for everyone if you keep murdering people”?”

Tom,

Your post is a curious one. I’m in what I think is a rather well-populated camp among libertarians: a group which defends natural rights but which, at the end of the day, isn’t itself sure the logic behind natural rights holds up. The reasoning in your post takes the ambivalence of myself and others and makes it positively nefarious (or at least grossly illogical). Essentially what you seem to be saying is: “How could you reject arg. ethics or nat. rights — if you do, we’re left with nothing of substance.” That may be so, but the potential repercussions of their rejection should not be grounds for us to cling to them for dear life. If they hold up under scrutiny, then excellent. If they don’t, we shall have to make recourse to other lines of argument. But for the sake of logic we should not let hope and fear be the foundation of our beliefs.

Libertarians are not wimps and if someone is violently attacked then he should defend violently.

Libertarians are not wimps and if someone is violently attacked then he should defend violently.

Free Market Economics Is Not “Individualism.”

People benefit from the mutually advantageous cooperation that is a part of the market process. Here is what Ludwig von Mises said about it:

“The greater productivity of work under the division of labour is a unifying influence. It leads men to regard each other as comrades in a joint struggle for welfare, rather than as competitors in a struggle for existence. It makes friends out of enemies, peace out of war, society out of individuals.” Socialism by Ludwig von Mises, p. 261

Mises was an Austrian economist. Nothing more; nothing less.