MORE AGAINST ARGUMENTATION ETHICS —“You don’t seem to really address Hoppe’s a

MORE AGAINST ARGUMENTATION ETHICS

—“You don’t seem to really address Hoppe’s argument at all. Hoppe does not argue that individuals don’t have the choice between cooperation, non-cooperation, and violence. Of course those are options.The point is that, in order to achieve a CONFLICT FREE dispute resolution, two parties must engage in argumentation. There’s no other way to go about justifying an ownership claim.”—Will Porter

HOPPE’S ARGUMENT

Hoppe is saying that the fact that when we argue truthfully in the pursuit of truth, that we abandon the techniques of (a) violence/avoidance (b) bribery/deprivation (c) ostracization/inclusion, and (d) fraud.

Most of Hoppe’s arguments are straw men. Lets look at this one: the conflation of epistemology and ethics.

SPECIAL CASE NOT GENERAL RULE

Like prime numbers, those conditions under which we eschew violence, eschew bribery, eschew otracization, and eschew fraud are limited to courts, in a small number of western nations whose judicial systems have evolved an allocation of property, to the individual, under the group evolutionary strategy of sovereignty.

In other words, we can only identify TRUTH in the absence of coercion by violence, fraud, bribery, and ostracization. This tells us NOTHING AT ALL about the scope of property. And it is the SCOPE of property that is the question. We could make the same claim and never, ever, discuss property. In fact, it would be much easier to conduct truthful speech WITHOUT the existence of property. Or stated differently, Hoppe is attributing to ethics that which is a property of epistemology.

WHAT ABOUT ETHICS?

So what does this tell us about ethics? (Cooperation for the purpose of survival, production, reproduction, and production of commons.) It tells us nothing.

So what scope of property can we defend truthfully? (Any). What and what does this tell us is the scope of property for one purpose or another? (Nothing)

Could we say that via analogy, the criteria for non-coercion in the pursuit of truth, was the same as the criteira for ethical cooperation? Well, why could we say that? Why wouldn’t the criteria for cooperation (ethics) be different from that of argumentation in the pursuit of truth, when the cost of speaking is near zero and the cost of finding, converting, obtaining, and defending property can approach the infinite? (It isn’t the same).

When people are in court, in disputes over property do they in fact tell the truth? Or do they struggle not to tell the truth, and use all forms of coercion readily? In other words does the evidence say that people seek the truth, or that people seek to deceive, while the prosecutor and judge (insurers) seek the truth in order to resolve the dispute by decidable means?

But even then, what does this tell us about the scope of property, or ethics of cooperation? (nothing).

So isn’t the pursuit of truth a special case instead of a general rule? Isn’t the attempt to cast a special case as a general rule either a deception, justification, or an error – or all three? (It’s all three at worst, the last two on average).

( Imagine a cell block of slaves lacking property, or freedom of movement. They have greater incentive to speak truthfully than do merchants and customers in a market.)

The depth of this criticism might not be apparent at first.

LETS START OVER

Now lets take this bit of insight:

—“There’s no other way to go about justifying an ownership claim.”—

We would have to (a) first determine the criteria for ‘ownership’, (which is itself a justification, not a truth.) and (b) who are we justifying this to? and (c) what can they do about it?

(Just a nit here so that we can come back to it.

– Justification: that we find an excuse.

– Criticism: that we survive all criticisms.)

Now let’s look at this question operationally (praxeologically), and not via justification (excuse-making).

1 – Possession is determined by Violence and Deception.

2 – Property is determined by Exchange: reciprocal consent (normative contract)

3 – Property rights are determined by an insurer: Payment. (enforcible contract)

But this doesn’t tell us anything about what people defend or engage violence, theft, fraud, conspiracy, and Conquest to obtain.

How do we determine that which is ethical(how we should act) in the spectrum of Possession, Normative Property, and ‘Legal’ Property Rights?

Well, we can try to ask ourselves introspectively (what would we defend) and we can try to observe (empirically) what others defend and retaliate against. And we can look to the common law, or laws in all groups, and try to deduce what they share in common.

And if we do that we find the following:

1) that laws evolved to prevent retaliation cycles. (feuds).

2) that laws evolved a scope of property, and a standard of restitution or punishment, and a standard or method of judgment.

3) That the scope of property evolves in tandem with the division of labor and the atomicity of the family and its inheritance.

4) That sovereignty (individual property rights) are achieved only under rare conditions, unique to the west, for historical reasons. But until very recently, the individual and family were inseparable (the family insured the individual).

Well, this doesn’t tell us much, other than that as the division of labor and knowledge increases so does the atomicity of property that insurers adjudicate.

So can we dig deeper and determine what causes retaliation? And by inversion, what determines ethical behavior (that which does not cause retaliation). Yes we can.

i) Productive

ii) Fully Informed

iii) Warrantied

iiii) Voluntary Transfer

Limited to externalities that are productive even if not fully informed or voluntary.

But what scope of actions do people not retaliate against the uproductive, uninformed, unwarrantied, involuntary, and externalized imposition of costs?

1-People: Body, Mates, Kin, Kith, Partners(Allies), Associates, Customers, Potential Customers (market)

2-Things: Property, Shares, Commons, Monuments, Territory.

3-Institutions: Institutions and organizations

4-Information: Myths, Traditions, Norms, Knowledge, Information

But under what criteria can I create or obtain, or obtain an interest in something (relations, things, institutions, and information)?

Well, I can do that only if I fail to impose costs upon the same of others:

1-…Homesteading (discovery and transformation),

2-… … Exchange, and

3-… … … Conversion of transformed and exchanged.

But don’t we also exhibit variation from group to group, and between groups? Yes, of course, groups construct normative ethics INTRA-GROUP (ingroup), but that does not stop us from discovering universal ethics INTER-GROUP(outgroup).

We avoid disputes and consequent retaliation cycles by eliminating all incentives for retaliation.

HOPPE’S ARGUMENT

Hoppe’s argument (and rothbards) fails the following tests:

1 – Truthful argument is the result of the use of violence to require productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to productive externalities. It is consequence not cause.

2 – Hoppe’s argument will not require productive, nor will rothbard’s argument require fully informed, and neither requires warranty as a defense against false-ethical pretenses. Rothbard in particular eschews all externalities.

3 – The pursuit of truth is different from fully informed. Bribery, Ostracization are almost always part and parcel of voluntary transfers since the transfer is itself a bribe.

4 – Any anarchic polity must suppress the willingness to retaliate or the forms of agreement one can enter into, or there will remain demand for the state (authority) as an arbitrary substitution for law that permits adjudication in the absence of discretion.

5 – Hoppe claims intersubjectively verifiable property but this is insufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity that can survive competition from other polities.

ETHICS VS EPISTEMOLOGY

Ethics and Epistemology are two different disciplines for two different purposes, if for no other reason than the difference in costs. (hence cheap rationalism and religion and expensive science and commerce).

An attempt to use Argumentation as the epistemic means of discovering ethics is a logical error. And it obscures the demonstrated scope of property.

In my opinion rothbard created a fallacy and hoppe as his devoted student sough to further JUSTIFY rothbard’s fallacy, rather than seek the scope property necessary for the production of a voluntary polity without demand for the state as a discretionary decider of last resort.

SUMMARY

Do nothing unto others that which one would not have done unto you. Do unto others only that which you would have done unto you.

Reciprocal non-imposition of costs against demonstrated scope of property. That’s ethics. The test of non-retaliation.

—SUPPORTING TABLES—

SCOPE OF TOLERANCE FOR COMPETITION

People demonstrably tolerate competition to various degrees in:

1 – Market for production (seizure of opportunities for consumption)

2 – Market for reproduction (seizure of opportunities for mating)

3 – Market for commons (seizure of opportunities for multipliers)

4 – Market for dispute resolution/law (retention of investments)

5 – Market for leadership/polity (choice of opportunity set)

6 – Market for Norms (limit transaction cost while leaving open seizure of new opportunities.)

7 – Market for Information (dependence upon information for decision making while leaving open possibility of new opportunities.)

SCOPE OF PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR STATELESS LIBERTY

Why does this scope of property matter?

1 – Because the scope of property over which disputes can be resolved peacefully in court, must be sufficient to eliminate demand for the state to impose legislation, regulation, and command.

2 – We do not choose the scope of property that suppresses demand for the state, any more than we choose the scope of property that people will retaliate for the imposition of costs against.

CHOICES AT ALL TIMES BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS

Individuals always possess these choices

1 Avoidance

…. 2 Violence

…. …. 3 Fraud

…. …. …. 4 Negotiation

…. …. …. …. 5 Preservation

…. …. …. …. …. 6 Defection

Without a third party insurer, all choices remain active at all times. Insurance by third parties (organizations, polities, courts) limits us to Avoidance, Negotiation, and Preservation.

CHOICES UNDER RECIPROCAL INSURANCE (LAW)

1 Avoidance,

… 2 Negotiation, and

… … 3 Preservation.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARISTOCRATIC AND GHETTO ETHICS

What is the difference between low trust ghetto ethics and high trust aristocratic ethics?

1 – NON- AGGRESSION, (justificationary) intentional, against intersubjectively verifiable property (physical property) producing low trust ghetto ethics with high demand for authority (the state).

2 – NON-IMPOSITION: retaliation(empirical) for intentional or unintentional imposition of costs against property in toto (demonstrated property) producing high trust aristocratic ethics with low demand for authority (the state).

THE SPECTRUM OF CONFLICT AND COOPERATION

There are only three methods of coercion:

… 0 Avoidance……. 1 Violence ……. 2 Remuneration ……. 3 Morality

And a timeline of the benefits of conflict and cooperation:

…………………..Short <—> Medium <—–> Long <——- > Longer

The Phase of Cooperation:

Avoidance <->Conflict<->Negotiation<->Cooperation <-> Commons

The Tactics

Movement <->Fighting<->Deception<->Defection <-> Externalities

The Defenses

…………………Military <-> Negotiating <-> Truth <-> Morality

…………………Militia ………Contract…………Court ……. Insurer

NOTES:

If I am trying to deceive you, and I make no claim that what I say is true, then how can I engage in a performative contradiction?

The only conditions under which performative contradiction matters is justification in court.

If people seek to justify their wants(negotiate) in trade, not seek to speak truthfully(conduct scientific investigation), then they are rarely if ever engaged in argument(truth), and almost always enagaged in negotiation (not-truth)

People engage in this spectrum actions:

Avoidance, Violence, Threat, Deception, Negotiation, Argument, Insurance(gifts etc), Sacrifice (kin selection),

People engage in i) argument over ‘goods'(common property), they ii) engage in negotiation of exchanges(several property), they engage in iii) threats to force transfers(possessions). But violence and deception are part of the argument, exchange or transfer, as much or more so than is any degree of truth.

Only when they argue over commons (goods) within an existing contract for cooperation(ethics), do they make truth claims. In negotiation they engage in deceptions, and by threats they deny property exists, only that possessions exist.

“…just talking, without any consequence of talking…”–hoppe

He conflates purposeless speech with deceptive speech. This is a straw man argument since we do not claim to make truth claims.

“…to be TRUE only for the parties involved in the..” – hoppe

Argument(negotiation) requires a truth claim, negotiation and threat do not require truth claims – they eschew them. Continuing the straw man. We do not make truth claims.

“….why should anyone pay attention to merely personal truths…”-hoppe

(a) no one is claiming truth, (b) under threat of loss of possessions you possess the need to pay attention, unless the threat is inconsequential. Continuing the straw man.

“…critics are engaging in a counter argument…”

This is true. But then the critics (like me) are conduction an argument (truth inquiry), not a negotiation or a threat. That says only that we are seeking truth (attempting to produce a commons we refer to as the general rule of ethical action- the terms of the contract for cooperation). This says nothing about

“…they engage in a performative contradiction…they say what they claim about argumentation is true…”

Continuing the straw man. They make no truth claim. In fact they (we, I) deny that people engage in argument, and instead engage in threat(command), and negotiation(deception), and that only in rare cases do they engage in argument (truth claims).

“….it is true for everyone capable of argumentation…”

Except that we are not making the claim that people are engaged in argument, but threat, deception, and justification.

“…argument…to resolve a conflict between rival truth claims…”

Except that we are not enaging in arguments, or making truth claims when threatening or negotiating or justifying. We are merely seeking information that we can exploit through violence, payment, or persuasion (threat).

“…argumentation implies one should accept the consequences of the outcome, otherwise why argue?…”

We aren’t arguing. We’re negotiating.

“…it would be contradictory for a judge in a trial to say…”

Well this is the point. Argumentation ethics applies only in court where we justify our actions by correspondence with law. It says nothing about the origin and limits of the conditions from which we must deduce basic rules of cooperation (ethics).

(No point in continuing)