ROTHBARD-HOPPE vs DOOLITTLE Hans hoppe’s argumentation ethics begins with the pr

ROTHBARD-HOPPE vs DOOLITTLE
Hans hoppe’s argumentation ethics begins with the premise that if we forgo violence then we recognize the demonstrated interests (property) of one another. This idea is via habermas (marxist), and both Hoppe and Habermas are Kantian (verbal) Rationalists.

My work is based entirely on the science and resulting operational (not verbal) logic of the first principles of the universe. As such, we always have choice of violence, exchange, or boycott. So, violence is never off the table, and all ethics and morality are constructed from avoiding, minimizing, and prohibiting providing incentves for violence that is always present.

The principle difference is in Hoppe/Rothbard’s use of intersubjectively verifiable property – a near prohibition on commons, and a license for free-riding, versus my use of demonstrated interests – which is any investment humans have made, including the common.

In both cases all behavioral science both psychology, sociology, economics, and politics, are reducible to statements of demonstrated interest. But the Hoppe-Rothbard seeks to avoid responsibility for the commons and my work seeks to maximize responsibility for the commons.

The result is Rothbards via-positiva Jewish Pilpul and Critique of no-responsibility separatists, Hoppe’s via-positiva German Rationalism and Critique limited responsibility (free cities), and my (Doolittle’s) via-negativa science and operational logic of maximum responsibility of anglo rule of law of the empirical common concurrent natural law, and our three differences in scope of interest and responsibility.

I hope this helps.
Cheers
#libertarian @mises