/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14112365]

Has anyone ever debunked Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentative ethics? Why no one talks about it?

[Anonymous No.14112426]

I don't understand it. He takes it as a given that people who choose to forgo violence and resolve their dispute with argumentation can't then go back to violence. Violence is always an option but he seems to say it isn't.

[Anonymous No.14112456]

>>14112365
>Why no one talks about it?
HHH is a joke bruh.

[Anonymous No.14112473]

>>14112365
HHH is basically just redpill Habermas

[Anonymous No.14112480]

>>14112426
violence is just the progression of conflict ie argument, Hoppe is a retard

[Anonymous No.14112506]

>>14112365

Can you encapsulate his position for us? How does he depart from Rothbard's natural law approach.

[Anonymous No.14112733]

>>14112426
He takes as a given that people can't justify aggression as a mean to resolve their dispute. Of course violence is always an option, you can always kill someone that disagree with you, but doing so, and violating their self-ownership, automatically invalidates any argument you can make about your own self-ownership, as it would mean a practical contradiction.
>>14112506
He still takes Rothbard approach to the NAP, but as a consequence of Mises praxeology applied to ethical questions.

[Anonymous No.14112767]

>>14112365
Here are a couple critiques

Libertarian critique:
Murphy, Robert P. and Gene Callahan, 2006. “Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethic: A Critique,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 20.2: 53–64.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf
Reply to the critique above:
Kinsella, Stephan, “Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan,” Anti-State.com, 9/19/2002
http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=312

Critique from a leftist:
>The obvious and major problem with argumentation ethics is that it cannot even overcome the “ought” from “is” dilemma of David Hume. In the case of Hoppe, one can note that, just because you require the use of certain body parts in debate, it simply does not follow from this that you have any absolute moral right to the use of your body, and certainly not of any external property. Another absurd statement in this video is Hoppe’s view (from 5.04 minutes) that without the right to exclusive control over and ownership of previously un-owned resources society would die out! In fact, a society with communal ownership of resources is not only a theoretical possibility, but also there are many real world examples of such viable societies with communal ownership of property.

[Anonymous No.14113589]

>>14112767
>Libertarian critique
Thanks, I'll read it later
>Critique from a leftist
>The obvious and major problem with argumentation ethics is that it cannot even overcome the “ought” from “is” dilemma of David Hume.
it can overcome the ought/is dillema, it's actually one of the reasons he is praised in the austro libertarian community, as you can see here
http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_ult_just_liberty.pdf
> In the case of Hoppe, one can note that, just because you require the use of certain body parts in debate, it simply does not follow from this that you have any absolute moral right to the use of your body, and certainly not of any external property.
there is no such thing as "require to use a certain body part". Every single action made by your body is exclusively controlled by you, even "being completely still", you choose to do so, in the same way you choose to raise your right arm.
>Another absurd statement in this video is Hoppe’s view (from 5.04 minutes) that without the right to exclusive control over and ownership of previously un-owned resources society would die out! In fact, a society with communal ownership of resources is not only a theoretical possibility, but also there are many real world examples of such viable societies with communal ownership of property.
He is talking about the fact that if no one has the right to use a scarce resource through homesteading, everyone will die as noone wouldn't even be able to eat. About communal ownership of property, there is nothing wrong with it, it's a "deal" between people to share a property. There is no conflict at all.