Theme: Decidability

INSIGHT INTO HOPPE’S FALLACY

(updated for accessibility)

—“All truth-claims – all claims that a given proposition is true, false, indeterminate or un-decidable or that an argument is valid and complete or not – are raised, justified and decided upon in the course of an argumentation.”— Hans Hermann Hoppe

This is a variation on Marx’s Dialectical Materialism (social competition).

– It presumes that the choices in all discourse are cooperation vs non, where they are violence/predation, cooperation, or non-cooperation.

– It presumes the existence of a contract for cooperation when none exists.

– It presumes that the parties seek agreement to cooperate on truth rather than deception.

– It assumes parties in dispute seek agreement rather than truth or falsehood and blame.

– It presumes parties debate in a court that does not operate by the same terms as the parties who are debating each other.

Courts do not seek consensus. They do not seek truth. They seek cases of falsehood, cases of deception, and cases of malincentives, and total internal and external changes in capital (property in toto). Your excuses don’t mean anything.

CONVERSELY

Notice that what Hoppe’s quote is NOT a statement of:

– Personal responsibility for the truth content of one’s words.

– Due Diligence of Testimony under law.

– Due Diligence in Science.

OR

– Due Diligence in argument

– Due Diligence in the Pursuit of Truth.

OR

– Modeling what people *demonstrate by their actions*.

What is the difference? In western ethics, the consequences of deceit might mean your death. In other words: warranty of your words, because one of the outcomes may be violence.

In other words *western ethics*.

Whereas, Hoppe is following jewish ethics, and jewish pilpul and following the marxists, and the postmodernists into social construction by stating that we haggle our way to agreement. We do not defend our way out of violence, parasitism, and deceit.

—-“The truth of this proposition cannot be disputed without falling into contradiction, as any attempt to do so would itself have to come in the form of an argument. Hence, the“Apriori” of argumentation.”— Hans Hermann Hoppe

Well as far as I know I just defeated it, because the premises are false.

TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE

Why am I arguing against hoppe other than to prevent harm to my people who out of their high trust nature are suggestible by overloading with his nonsense prose? I am dependent upon my fellows for competitive advantage. so damage to the informational commons is an aggression against the high investment i and mine have made in the normative, informational, and institutional commons. and why do the courts not allow me and mine to seek restitution for those aggressions? They should. Because no marxist or postmodernist propaganda would survive.

CLOSING

In other words, Hoppe is another user of conflation, non-operationalism (which exposes these errors), and non-western european ethics.

This is why deflationary truth, including operationalism, are so important: because there is a very big difference between the {verbal and ideal} and the {operational and real}.

MAKE MODELS NOT ARGUMENTS.

That’s the difference between Real (model), Ideal (argument), Supernatural (excuse). Operationalism = Real, possible, and fully accounted.