>You say: “it is logically impossible for you to propose a norm that contradicts the libertarian norm, without falling into contradiction.”

“Okay, I say “I propose the norm that parents should educate their children”. The implication of “education” impies that I use a slight form of coercion and power over my children.”

This is correct. This is not necessarily aggressive.

“Following your “logic”, I cannot logically propose the norm of education then.”

Your suggesting this a second time does not make it less absurd.

” Instead, the only logically consistent thing here would be: “as nobody can propose a norm that is against the AE, I can only propose the norm that NOBODY should educate their children. Children are free for they are in principle able to argue. Parents have to stand still if their youngborn crawls away. No education allowed in this totalitarian libertarian world, sorry guys. All we parents we would logically contrdict ourselves… ”

I cannot force you to read Kinsella’s “How we come to own ourselves”, which might go a long way to helping you here. But if you sincerely wish to understand why i call your objection absurd, you really should.

“Once more: Go ahead, try to impose your theocracy laws and I get my gun (“totally contradictory” of course)
“This is a waste of time, I fear. WE should all get back to work and try to do the best to our closest friends and loved once, don’t play social engineers, you all!”

Yeah.

Paul Edwards
>“Start at a simple beginning – what if two people are voluntarily engaged in an argumentation. What, are, the necessary presuppositions for this to occur and proceed?”

“Freedom of speech is the basic general presupposition. No one should be intimidated to think in specific ways.”

Check.

” In some arguments about truth nothing is going to be acted upon so disagreement doesn’t matter. Sometimes action is required and then someone will be overruled if there is disagreement. Let’s assume the argument is about something that is going to be acted upon. We have already shown that argument in the presence of power doesn’t have to be any problem at all for the argument.”

“ So unrestricted freedom to act upon what the participants believe is true can not be presupposed by argument.”

The thesis is the opposite – that argumentation presupposes certain norms that must restrict violent property incursions by one participant on the other.

“Let’s take the simple I gave. The wanderer and the forest owner meet in the wood. They voluntarily start a conversation about whether the wanderer has a right to be there. You say this obscure Hoppes theory, I’d say the resolution of a simple example would be a great vindication of Hoppes theory.”

This doesn’t, per se, obscure the theory, if you recognize that we don’t need to discuss volumes on the history of the real estate in question, and the resources on it, to get to the root of the issue. That is: that both participants are already agreeing to the exclusive and cooperative use of scarce and rivalrous resources – starting with their own bodies – to argue and justify to get to a truth regarding rights of use of other scarce resources is the necessary and sufficient starting point. It demonstrates an implicit acknowledgement of private property in their own bodies and rights not to have those bodies physically incurred up on by the other.

” They start their conversation by giving their reasons for being right.”

And before this, they start by assuming a right to give their reasons for being right. That is, they mutually assume for each other, a right not to be physically accosted just because they are attempting to justify their position.

” The wanderer claim that a right to control access to the forest cannot be acquired, you can only acquire a right to cultivate the forest and to harvest the fruits of this labour.”

But this is unnecessary analysis. Do you not agree that the wanderer – in attempting to justify his view on property in forest – already claims a right to exclusive control of his own physical body, without someone else threatening aggression against it, and a right also to exclusively consume resources necessary to live (no two people can eat the same specific food twice) – again without threats of aggression? Obviously he does. In justifying any view, he has already conceded and assumed as ultimately justified peaceful cooperative action, and a right to exclusive control of scarce and rivalrous resources (property), including alienable property. All that is left is to understand the ultimate basis of of how this assumption of property emerges. And it does not take much to notice that this assumption of property necessarily emerges from recognizing a best objective claim to such resources which is the homesteading principle.

” The owner claims this to be unreasonable, he is the owner of the forest in the same way he is the owner of his garden and the same rights apply. The interesting thing about Hoppe is that those arguments can never matter. It is the fact that they have an argument at all that decides the matter. Hoppe correctly claims that we need right to resolve the matter.”

Yes, and these rights are not like rocks we discover on the road. They are not discovered like that, or given to us, by some powerful “holder”, or “creator” of rights. They are assumed – by ourselves, and others mutually – and they are most clearly assumed in the cooperative action of justification.

” However, it is glaringly obvious from the example that argumentation is consistent with any appointment of rights, they can argue their case no matter who is right.”

Absolutely – argumentation almost implies disagreement, or at least it implies the possibility of disagreement. But the point is, they cannot even attempt to arrive a honest agreement – they cannot engage in honest truth pursuing argumentative justification, without assuming certain norms between themselves first.

” The truth of the matter simply cannot be contained in the conditions for having the argument. If it is, it needs to be shown in a very specific way, not just asserted. And there is in Hoppes argument no hint to as how this should be done.”

Getting to the truth of who has a right to exclusive use of a particular scarce and alienable resource is a matter of demonstrating superior objective links that were created by specific actions at specific times – yes. But the above fact is still ultimately justified in the fact that it is implicit and presupposed in the act of argumentation.

You are just demonstrating your vacuousness for all to see. I just said “It is hilarious to see you stuffing words and meanings into a quote” (which incidentally was what you were trying to do) and off you go calling me names.

What a prize a#$%^&*e.

p.s. Ban me. It would be a great favour you could do to me. This addiction is killing.

Unless you’re trying not to.

Define “philosophy” before making your statements.

p.s. Trained in the “Kantian tradition”, was he? That makes him a non-philosopher by training. In fact, it makes him a voodoo artist. Thanks for the clarification, or rather, the frank confession.

” I don’t konw what you mean ”

When have you ever known what anyone else is saying? (That was personal)

There is a world of difference between thinking and being aware. Your attempts to mix them up haven’t escaped my attention.

Still trying to seek a rationalisation for your pathetic attempt at stuffing words and meanings into a quote?

Since Russ has demolished this stupid, pathetic argument by appeal to authority for the garbage that it is, I shall not do anything more than thanking him.

Thanks Russ.

When did Bala say that Hoppe isn’t formally trained, or that Rand was? He didn’t. He said that Hoppe isn’t a “real” philosopher. It would be like me saying that Krugman isn’t a “real” economist. The fact that he has formal training is irrelevant.

Bala never claimed that Hoppe isn’t formally trained, or that Rand is. He said that Hoppe isn’t a real philosopher. It’s like if I said that Krugman isn’t a real economist, and you replied that he is formally trained. Yeah. So? Argument from authority.

“Hans Hoppe was schooled in the modern (in his case, Kantian) philosophic tradition, rather than in natural law, acquiring a PhD in philosophy at the University of Frankfurt. He then moved to a dissertation in the philosophy of economics for his “second doctoral,” or Habilitation degree. “”

http://mises.org/daily/3603
“In the late 1960s and early 1970s he studied history, sociology, and philosophy at the universities of Saarbrücken and Frankfurt am Main. His 1974 doctoral dissertation, published in 1976, dealt with the praxeological foundations of epistemology. Its central thesis was that all cognitive processes, and thus the sciences, are but special forms of human action. It followed that the laws of action were also the basic laws of epistemology. Hoppe would soon discover that, a few years before him, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises had come to essentially the same conclusion. “

” That’s not a theory, that are assumptions.”

Oh? And within the context of this discussion, this distinction matters how? Recall the point: truth statements with apodicticly certain content regarding practical questions, cannot deny the possibility of apodictly certain statements about practical questions. Such statements represent a contradiction, and as such must necessarily be assumed false.

unless you think they can use it against you. that doesnt seem very worthless.

how is one tricked??

“, that are assumptions.” is “that are assumptions” an intricacy???

“You are tricked by the intricacies of language and fail to see the actual argument. The argument isn’t about the attitude to logic, it is about the attitude to reality. If I was to rephrase more accurately, it would be “The only thing we can be sure about is logic. We cannot confirm any theory about the state of the world that we live in”.”

Really? I have a theory that you and I exist and think and act and argue, and that a universe and world exists that allows these things to be true. I claim these facts are in respect to the state of the world that we live in, and are also true a priori. Do you really think you can dispute them without flaunting your contempt for logic – the one thing you almost seemed to have some faith in?