Argumentation Ethics by Hoppe
Here’s a summary of one example of the moral theory behind libertarianism, The Ultimate Justification of the Private Property Ethic, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
“The mere fact that an individual argues presupposes that he owns himself and has a right to his own life and property.”
Any alternative to the private property ethic must necessarily contradict the demonstrated preference of the person making such a proposition. Just like how if I said “Your senses are not valid”, this would be contradictory because in order for you to hear and understand the statement, your senses must be valid.
Two essential insights:
- In asserting a proposition, you are demonstrating a preference for willingness to rely on argumentative means – the content of the claim must also be compatible with the idea that that claim’s truth value can be determined via argumentative means.
- It must be recognised that when you form an argument, you are employing some form of scarce means (such as your body), and that this form of means is private property.
When you argue with somebody, you are implicitly recognising that that person has a mutually exclusive property right in their own body. Arguing any kind of norm is presupposing that you have an exclusive right of control over your own body.
If we want to now extend property rights out to things external to our own body, this can be shown by the very fact that in order to stay alive, you have to appropriate other things for your use such as food, land, water etc. There must be some way to show a link between a person and some kind of resource. Not just this, but the first-user-first-owner rule of libertarianism (homesteading) must necessarily be the only way to claim ownership of resources.
Why must it necessarily be the first user? Because anything other than this would require a person to get the prior consent of all latecomers. If you think about this, you’ll realise that such a rule would mean that our ancestors, ourselves, and our children could never survive by such a rule.
Property rights could not be “timeless” and non-specific regarding people, and to argue against this is also self-contradictory because to argue is to presuppose one’s existence as an independent, decision-making moral agent at a given time.
11 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Archives
- October 2009 (16)
- September 2009 (10)
- August 2009 (2)
- July 2009 (14)
- June 2009 (2)
- April 2009 (6)
- March 2009 (5)
- January 2009 (5)
- December 2008 (3)
- November 2008 (3)
- October 2008 (7)
- September 2008 (2)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
This is probably one of the silliest essays I’ve seen in a long time.
So the truth of an argument is based on self-ownership? Why is that exactly? Suppose that there were no people, would the truth be more or less true than it is now or error any less erroneous? You do realize, don’t you, that the point of “argumentation” is that it is one method to approach truth? The point is not to assert personhood or dominance, it is to ferret out error. You can participate or not or listen or not, but the truth doesn’t become any less true because you deny yourself the opportunity to know it.
And legitimate claims to property are established by homesteading, are they? And how about after that? Mr. Hoppe doesn’t say. [A rather major flaw in his argument, don't you think, since none of those first claimants have been around for quite a while?] But lets assume that property claim are only legitimate if you are the homesteader or have taken [directly or indirectly] from that homesteader by gift or exchange.
What this means, of course, is that there are NO legitimate property titles today, since we know from recorded history that property has frequently past from one person to another through force or fraud, not invariably by exchange or gift. [Remember, only one break in the chain renders every title claim thereafter illegitimate.]
Hence, since everyone is holding stolen property, one might as well steal it again from the person who has no truly legitimate claim to it. As Hoppe might say at this point ” you’ll realise that such a rule would mean that our ancestors, ourselves, and our children could never survive by such a rule.”
You know, it is just this sort of babble that gives libertarians a bad name. Next time, think before you post.
Comment by Craig J. Bolton | December 29, 2007 |
Hi Craig, no I don’t think the truth value of the existence of private property changes, I think what Hoppe is saying here is that nobody could rationally deny the existence of private property. So while the point of argumentation is not just to assert self-ownership, this is what it necessarily does.
Good point with the illegitimate claims to property, but with this statement: “Since everyone is holding stolen property, one might as well steal it again” Two wrongs don’t make a right, the fact that person A stole from person B does not mean that person C is justified in stealing from person A.
Maybe if it is not possible to determine who is the rightful owner of a given piece of property, then it could become fair game for homesteading once again. What do you think? Out of curiosity, do you have an alternative?
Lastly, I don’t think whether or not we can come up with a way to sort out the mess NOW, should mean that it was not wrong for that property to have been taken by any means other than voluntary agreement. So yeah, I’m acknowledging that property has been taken in the past, and that was wrong. Whether or not we know what to do now, does not change whether it was right or wrong for someone to steal the property in the first place.
Comment by Stephan | December 29, 2007 |
Sigh… no, what Hoppe’s argument states is that you cannot deny, in the course of argumentation, any of those things which it presupposes; to do so is to enter a performative contradiction. Contradictions do not hold in reality, they are a sure sign of falsehood.
Comment by Inquisitor | December 30, 2007 |
Inquisitor, are you responding to Craig?
Because that’s what I was saying, that it is impossible to “argue against your own self-ownership”, simply because in order to argue it, you are taking ownership of yourself.
Comment by Stephan | December 30, 2007 |
Yes, I was responding to Craig. Most people seem to misconceive Hoppe’s argument.
Comment by Inquisitor | December 31, 2007 |
[...] like it or not, private property rights exist. It is a consequence of everybody having a self-ownership right. Here’s a video showing an example of how private property could be shown to exist. [...]
Pingback by Free Markets are not coercion « Democracy Sucks | January 6, 2008 |
“Most people seem to misconceive Hoppe’s argument.”
maybe that’s because hoppe’s arguments are misconceived.
Comment by lefty | December 4, 2008 |
lefty, perhaps you’d like to elaborate on why you actually think that?
It doesn’t really help the rest of us when you just write one line saying you disagree without saying why.
Comment by Stephan | December 4, 2008 |
the first poster craig:
“from recorded history that property has frequently past from one person to another through force or fraud”
this statement is true. keep in mind that acts of ‘force or fraud’ coincides with concepts of ownership
“since everyone is holding stolen property, one might as well steal it again from the person who has no truly legitimate claim to it”
why have any concept of right or wrong? why would one want to even attempt to reason at all since people seemingly do things without reason everyday?
assuming thats not the intention of the argument, the next aspect then would be to question: what is, or how does one recognize a “truly legitimate claim”?
Comment by Jesse | February 21, 2009 |
I still don’t understand why there couldn’t be a pro-slavery slave P arguing with an anti-slavery slave A why they both are private property of their owner. Sure, A doesn’t have to be convinced via argument because he is a slave whether convinced or not. But still, P could try to convince him because he will be more obedient this way or because she likes arguing.
Comment by flostre | March 17, 2009 |
Flostre:
P would be arguing with a different definition of property from Hoppe. Hoppe is saying that through the act of arguing you are asserting that you hold claim to yourself since you and you alone can make yourself act.
P would be arguing that he belongs to a social class of slaves, and they should act as those in the owning class wish as a path of least resistance.
Through arguing that they act upon the desires of the owners, P is implying that he owns himself. He is stating that he has the ability to act with or against his owner, and that he should choose to act with.
It all comes down to the ambiguity of definitions for property, slave, and owner.
In a strict philosophical sense, P is contradicting himself by showing that he controls his own actions.
In the sense of societal classes he is merely arguing in favor of his societal norms.
Comment by dakk | March 19, 2009 |