Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

ARGUMENTATION ETHICS TELL US NOTHING ABOUT PROPERTY

(for documentation purposes)

Conflating possession (control) with Property (norm) with Property Right (institutionally insured).

1) We acknowledge ONLY that one is in POSSESSION of one’s body not that one’s body is one’s property.

2) Epistemological demand for non-coercion tells us nothing about the necessary scope of property, or even the existence of property.

I suppose this distinction is somewhat hard to grasp, but possession, property, and property rights exist as three separate conditions of the individual, the social, and the formal institutional.

You possess your life and body as long as you can defend them.

– Slaves with no liberty or property can argue truthfully.

– Possessors of property can debate and trade dishonestly.

– Normative owners can negotiate and trade less so.

– Institutional owners can PLEAD as honestly as is demanded by the insurer (judge)

Argumentation tells us nothing about the scope or limits of property. It tells us only that we are in possession of an ability to speak, and that truthful speech is free of coercion by violence or its avoidance, remuneration or its deprivation, or ostracization from opportunity and insurance.

If you cannot state the scope and limits of that which must be agreed upon for the formation and preservation of a voluntary polity, then you do not know of what you speak.

What are the scope and limits of property necessary for the formation of a voluntary polity?

Argumentation tells us nothing, since debate costs nothing, and interests in property whether private or common varies from extremely cheap to infinitely expensive.

—ORIGINAL—

(by Brandon Roark )

Your definitions seem sound, but ownership is not established by threats of force to defend; rather, defensive force is seen as just where property titles already exist contractually. And yes, by arguing we are both bringing our priors to the table but with the goal of persuasion and possibly coming away with a different ie harmonized perspective, the purpose of argument.

This underlying purpose in the action of argumentation demonstrates that any arguer must logically have already accepted the ownership claim of his argumentation partner to his body not to be coerced but rather persuaded.

In the talk in the OP, Hoppe uses the example of a trial. What would be the purpose of organizing a trial if no evidence or argument brought forth had any bearing at all on the verdict? If this were the case, the trial would hardly be an argument proper, thus revealing that the judge does not recognize the ownership of the accused to his own body or property at stake by the outcome of such a show trial.

Where I differ with and possibly contribute to Hoppean ethics is in action as an argument or at least as a statement. Peaceful interaction would meet the qualifications of an argument in his system, whereas aggressive action is merely a statement, a claim.

To act is to express a normative position, that the world should be a certain way. To act aggressively is to claim that the world should be a certain way regardless of how the competing values of others are affected, which cannot be substantiated because value is subjective.

A normative claim in conflict with those of others cannot be demonstrated true unless interaction is peaceful, that is, a proper argument over how the world should be: a negotiation of price for example, rather than theft.

Note that normative claims in this system do have a truth value: it can be true or false that a particular state of the world is preferable to another, but only in the subjective value schedule of an actor. Clearly, a plurality of actors may value an identical state of the world differently, which is the seed of conflict and where argumentation becomes a requisite for a resolution.

Where argumentation is deployed, it becomes evident in the action itself that all participants have agreed to a basic norm by which to handle to potential for conflict, that is, by the property norm: an acknowledgement by each of the property title to each of his body and those facilities acted upon as means to conduct argumentation.

THE FALLACY OF ROTHBARDIAN SELF-OWNERSHIP

– Ownership can exist only as an interpersonal norm or legal enforcement.

– Possession is an objective fact.

– You possess your body.

– You don’t own it.

– You own your body only in so far as others consent to it, your polity habituates it, or an insurer (the law) enforces it.

SEQUENCE

– Awareness of. …………..(personal)

– Possession In Fact …….(personal)

– Consensual Ownership.(interpersonal)

– Normative Ownership …(social)

– Institutional Ownership..(institutional[insured])

POSSESSION BY NON-IMPOSITION

– Creation (Homesteading) via action

– Transformation via action

– Exchange via

… … Productive

… … Fully Informed

… … Warrantied

… … Voluntary Transfer

… … Limited to Externalities of the Same Criteria

OWNERSHIP CANDIDATE

– One can request(consensual), claim(normative), demand(institutional) OWNERSHIP of a POSSESSION by Non-Imposition if and only if we hold a possession via Creation, Transformation, or Exchange.