The Instigator
LaissezFaire
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
CiRrK
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Anything That's Peaceful: In Defense of a Voluntary Society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
CiRrK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,562 times Debate No: 16562
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (8)

 

LaissezFaire

Pro

Resolution: Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s argument for private property (which I will elaborate on below) is correct. My burden of proof is to defend the following argument, and Con’s is to show that it is wrong.

Introduction: The function of property rights is to avoid conflicts over the use of goods. Some sort of rules of conduct regarding the use of resources is necessary because of scarcity—that is, because of the fact that there are fewer goods than there are things people could want to use them for. Without scarcity, no such rules would be necessary—everyone could just take as much of whatever they wanted, because it wouldn’t affect the availability of that thing for anyone else. But because scarcity does exist, there must be some sort of property rights in resources (rights to use those resources). I will be defending the private property ethic as the solution to this problem of resource distribution.

Hoppe’s Argument: First, we must conclude that each person owns—that is, has the right to exclusively control—his own body. To argue against this, or to make any argument at all, one must use one’s body, exercising that right. So any argument against self-ownership would logically contradict itself, and be false.
Second, it must be true that humans have the right to homestead resources (acquire property) from the natural world. This is true because to humans require this to survive. Anyone alive must, necessarily, exercise this right. So any argument against this would contradict itself, because the arguer would have to exercise this right to be able to try to deny it. So, people must have the right to homestead and use some resources from the natural world.

Third, the way one justly acquires property must be through the first-use first-own principle (homesteading). That is, the first person to put a resource to use is its rightful owner. . If the right to take resources from the natural world exists because doing so is necessary for survival, then the just way to acquire property must be through the first-use first-own rule. This is true because the way resources help us survive is through our use of them.

Claims regarding property, such as “because I need it” are invalid because they don’t establish a connection between a particular person and a particular piece of property. To say “I own a house” doesn’t mean that you own some house, it means that you own a specific house. To say that one owns—has the exclusive right to control—a vague, nonspecific resource is meaningless. Or, if the rule for appropriating scarce resources was, say, being the first to declare them yours, as Nozick suggests, then one could do this with other people’s bodies. Since this contradicts self-ownership, which is already established, it must be false. The first-use first-own rule does not run into this problem, as each person is the first person to use their own body.

Fourth, once it is established that the right to acquire some property, we must conclude that any restrictions to this right, other than self-imposed ones, are invalid. For, if a resource that I have homesteaded from the natural world isn’t mine, then whose is it? If the only just way to acquire property is through homesteading, and I’m the one who homesteaded a particular piece of property, then it couldn’t rightly belong to anyone but me.

But what if someone acquired so much property that another cannot survive? For one, wealth production is not a zero-sum game in a capitalist society—someone who acquires wealth by putting resources to use makes society as a whole richer through trade. But it is conceivable that someone putting resources to use now could cause a loss for late-comers, people who may have put those resources to use later if that original someone hadn’t. Locke himself included a provision for this—he said that homesteaders were required to leave “as much and as good in common to others.” Locke’s proviso is wrong. There are two possibilities—either late-comers do have a right to unowned resources, or they don’t. If they do, then everyone would simply die, as one would need the permission of the late-comers to acquire property, which no one could possibly get, as many of those late-comers haven’t been born yet. The same is true even if the late-comer’s rights were limited to the resources needed for survival. For if late-comers (those that haven’t appropriated a given resource) had a right to resources they might need for survival, then this would have to be true for all late-comers. And no one could possibly know what resources these late-comers might need, especially since ‘all late-comers’ must include people that haven’t been born yet, of which there are an unlimited amount of potential people that could need any potentially homesteaded resource. Limiting it further to say that late-comers that currently exist can have property rights in something they “need” runs into the problem mentioned earlier—that such a criterion for property rights doesn’t establish a link between a particular person and a particular piece of property. Saying that you have a property right—the right of exclusive use and control—of a vague, nonspecific piece of property is completely meaningless.

CiRrK

Con

Before i start, Im going to note that I will most likely lose this debate because of the overwhelming anarchist/libertarian support on this site. And the fact that most of these debaters are advocates of Hoppe. But I ask to maintain partiality when judging. Thank you.

==On Case==

*Hoppe's Argument*

I. Universal self-ownership from Discourse Ethics

1. No warrant is provided by Hoppe that tells us why discourse ethics are correct. If no warrant is given, no following conclusions can be made. He simply assumes they are correct and take them as his presuppositions.

2. Another assumption made by Hoppe is the principle of universality as a way to justify discourse ethics, however no warrant for universality is given either.

3. No warrant as to why something being contradictory is false. This is a western mindset that s no warranted basis. Many Eastern Religions, such as Daoism ind the greatest truth in contradictions. Moreover, proving a simple logical flow does not mean it is correct practice.

*Remember my opponent needs to justify HOPPE'S arguments on property, so my opponent cannot ad lib his on warrants, he must show that Hoppe himself warranted these assumptions from his work.*

4. Hoppe's logic only justifies parts and the whole. Remember discourse ethics assert that having the ability to communicate ones arguments is the method by which normative moral rules are attained. But that does not lead to the conclusion that Hoppe draws. Hoppe assumes universal self-ownership of ones body, namely the whole body. But discourse ethics dont assert this. It only implicitly asserts that those parts which are needed to debate/argue are prerequisites and which cannot be taken away or fully governed by another person or group. However, since legs or arms are not needed to debate then those are not included in universal self-ownership. Therefore, discourse ethics do not warrant universal self-ownership of the ENTIRE body, just part which are necessary like the brain.

5. Self-ownership is not a prerequisite. Famous people such as Thomas Paine, and Hitler were imprisoned, i.e. being stripped of self-governance but their ideas and their arguments pervaded while they were imprisoned. So to assume that losing ownership of one's body leads to a loss of discourse is false, as seen my historical evidence. Milton Friedman makes the point that empirical-historical analysis proves Hoppe's point false - slavery existed in the past, which was a complete rejection of the notion of self-governance, and yet countless number of slaves have successfully argued against slavery.

6. Flowing from #5, Hoppe admits briefly, but devastatingly hat self-ownership can be overridden for society's good, e.g. imprisoning criminals. This is true because criminals harm society and other individuals, and as such warrant imprisonment and a loss of freedom. This has two impacts: 1) The entire premise that Hoppe wants to justify is not universal and thus not a negative right and 2) Assumes society's overriding power over the individual.

II. Homestead Principle

1. The justification my opponent provides for the homestead principle is at the end, namely of survival. As such, he is implicitly conceding a consequentialist framework. This is important because if one accepts a consequentilist framework, one must reject the foundations of what Hoppe relies on, namely discourse ethics and the claim that homestead is a categorical principle. Other than that, here is no warrant for the homestead principle. So by the nature of a consequentialist framework, no universals exist, only the fact that we mus do what maximizes the best outcome, which may or may not align with the anarcho-capitalist vision of Hoppe.

2. The Homestead principle lacks a weighing mechanism or brightline. The Labor theory of property argues, as Hoppe argues, is that when one mixes labor one can properly claim it to be his. The problem with this however is there is no way to adequately to determine a sufficient amount of labor. Can I fence off 5 acres of property and claim it to be mine, or do I have to work that entire 50 acres of land? Moreover, what if I work someone else's land more than them? Is it now mine? All these questions lead us to the conclusion of a more powerful arbiter, the state, which would then contradict the premise that Hoppe seeks to prove, namely a stateless society.

3. Hoppe again provides no warrant as to why the FIRST-COME rule is true. The only warrant is that the creation of the concept of property is justified via the consequence of survival, but to say that justifies the first-come rule is non-seqitur. ne does not logically follow the other. The only glimmer of warrant beyond survival is the fact that we use it to survive. Welleven if you accept this: 1) it still utilities a consquentilist notion and 2) it assumes that we all live on our own island. But this is false. We live in a society. When we build a house we pay a company to do it for us (at least most of us). Thus, it is OTHER people's labor which is helping US to survive.

III. "Because I need it" ...

1. Hoppe never warrants why a particular link is necessary. The State could make that decision for you. It doesnt have to be you as an individual.

2. This argument assumes that your other premises are correct, so cross-apply my other responses.

IV. Restrictions on this right are invalid

1. What entails self-imposed? Moreover, according to Hoppe even self-imposed loss of these rights would be self-contradictory because it would be going against the notion of self-governance.

2. Seeing as most of your warrants presuppose a consequentialist framework, then yes, rights can be restricted for the greater good of society.

3. Social Contract Theory. Since society does exist, and we are members of it, we cede part of our rights for stability and order. This means that even negative rights are subject to forceful ceding.

V. Survival and Late-comer argument

1. In this part, my opponent rejects the argument of survival of people who dont benefit from Hoppe's system by saying that the use of wealth and resources makes society much richer. This however ignores social stratification. Since resources have been divided up already, wealth and resources pretty much stay within the hands of those people and families. Thus, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

2. He gives no warrant that his assertion is actually true.

==Off Case==

1. Consequentialism

This ethical and thus political system needs to be accepted as rejection of Hoppe's notion of property. This is true for a few reasons:

A) Any warrant provided by my opponent assumed a consequentialist framework. Refer to the beginning premises for those warrants, which encompassed the idea of survival. This is true because no matter how you argue from a perspective, the foundational warrant will always be some consequence.

B) It maximizes protection of people within society. Since consequentialism is not a categorical system, such as is the system of my opponent and Hoppe, then the system is flexible which will help to minimize harms within society. The system provided by my opponent is not flexible since it argues for absolutes and the universalization or property.

2. The ultimate goal of Hoppe - the abolishment of the state and thus non-agression against private property and individuals is antithetical to itself. Evil people will always exist within society, and agressors will always exist within society. The non-aggression principle constrains good people from acting, and results in passive ignorance of evils happening outside of ones own society. If Hoppe had his there would be no aggression against the aggressors in, e.g. Sudan (Darfur). This results in the collapse of Hoppe's system. Thus it can be seen that in practical application, Hoppe's system and the general anarchist/libertarian view of the world ultimately destroys itself.
Debate Round No. 1
LaissezFaire

Pro


I. Self Ownership


1. I don’t really understand Con’s point here. The “warrant” (which apparently means ‘reason that the claim is true’, for those that aren’t familiar with debate jargon) is the whole argument, which shows that one cannot deny argumentation ethics without logically contradicting oneself.


2. The universality of argumentation ethics derives from the universality of argumentation. Anyone capable of argumentation cannot deny argumentation ethics without contradiction. So as far as argumentation is universal (not animals, for example), argumentation ethics is.


3. I don’t need a justification for my claim that logical contradiction implies falsehood, because that’s just what logical contradiction means. And while I’m pretty sure Daoism teaches the complementary nature of opposites, which is different from truth in logical contradiction, it wouldn’t matter if some religion did teach that logical contradictions can be true—FREEDO believes such nonsense, but I doubt anyone would accept that as evidence for Con’s claim.


4. It doesn’t matter that one’s entire body isn’t used for argumentation. We can still acquire ownership of it the same way we acquire ownership of things outside our bodies—by the first-use first-own principal.


5. Hoppe’s argument is not that we all have the power of self-ownership. Obviously, people’s rights to their bodies and property are violated all the time, as in Con’s slavery example. His argument is that everyone has the right to self-ownership—it is a moral argument, not one about how the world actually is. Saying that that right is often violated proves nothing, except that the world is often an immoral place.


6. Contrary to Con’s claims, Hoppe says nothing about overriding the right to self-ownership for “society’s good.” Criminals may be imprisoned because they forfeited their rights by violating the rights of others. There’s more on why exactly that is here [1], if anyone’s interested (note that the information in that link isn’t part of the debate, it’s just interesting).


II. Homesteading


1. Again, Con misrepresents Hoppe’s argument. His point is not that survival is “good,” or that it is a better consequence than death, but that survival is necessary for argumentation. This is not accepting the consequentialist framework at all—it’s an extension of his point that denying argumentation ethics entails a contradiction.


2. There is, in fact, a bright line we can determine property rights by. As I said in Round 1, homesteading is done by the first-use first-own principal. If you use a plot of land first, you own it. Simple.


3. First, see 1. for why Hoppe’s argument does not assume consequentialism. Second, it doesn’t matter that we often pay other people to do things like build our homes. The first-come rule is how people HOMESTEAD property, not the only way one can acquire property. Once property is homesteaded, it can be traded away in exchange for money or goods, because once someone owns property they can, by definition, do anything they want with it that doesn’t violate the rights of others (“Anything that’s peaceful”).


III. “Because I need it..


1. Any definition of property rights without a particular link between a person and a particular piece of property would be incoherent. What could the right to exclusively control a vague, undefined piece of property possibly mean? Such a criterion for property rights would be incompatible with the rest of Hoppe’s argument, and if that is correct, then need-based property rights must be invalid.


2. Why would you create a separate point for this?


IV. Restrictions on Rights


1. A self-imposed limit on homesteading simply means not homesteading as much property as you possibly could. Obviously, failing to acquire as much property as you can doesn’t contradict self-governance.


2. Again, no it doesn’t. See II. 1.


3. No social contract has ever actually been made, so this point is irrelevant. Even if people did voluntarily get together to set up a social contract creating a government, that wouldn’t prove Hoppe wrong. He argues that property rights exist—not that people can’t cede these rights if they want to. If people chose to create a social contract, it wouldn’t be a rights violation.


V. Survival and Late-Comers


1+2. Con here conveniently ignores almost all of my argument here. The part he disputes is in no way necessary to my argument about late-comers—see the last paragraph of my Round 1 for what my argument actually was.



==Off Case==


1. Consequentialism


A. Again, this isn’t true. See II. 1.


B. Saying a consequentialist society would have better consequences than a society based on a rights-based ethic isn’t really an argument.


2. Here, Con fails to understand the meaning of the word ‘aggression.’ It is the initiation of force, not any force at all. Non-aggression means not using violence against innocent people—it says nothing about using violence against criminals, which, as I said before, is permissible within the private property ethic.



[1] http://mises.org...


CiRrK

Con

I. DE

1a. My argument here is that Hoppe presupposes Discourse Ethics, without himself justifying it. The only reason he points out that the logical contradiction between argumentation and property is important is because he accepts the premises of Discourse Ethics in the first place. This would like me, being a theist, enter a debate over gay marriage and argue from biblical moral interpretation. My argument assumes another point to be true. Hoppe does the same thing, except with the assumption of Discourse Ethics. Never in Hoppe's work does he independently try and justify Discourse Ethics. He takes the assumption that yes, ethical norms are achieved from argumentation but doesn't tell us why.

1b. Wrong, his argument is that one cannot deny property rights without contradicting Discourse Ethics, due to the fact that he says property rights are true because one cannot argue without it.

2. This is a circular argument. Universality is true because Discourse Ethics are true because universality is true. Again, this presupposes a point to be true without being warranted first. He needs to warrant why something that has a characteristic of universality implies an ethical action.

4. No, this is crucial. Discourse Ethics are only valid insofar as the ability to argue is facilitated. A lot of members of the body are not needed to effectively debate. As such, the argument that your ENTIRE BODY is needed for discourse is false. Only certain members are needed. The argument you are making here is jumping the points of Discourse Ethics to the property of Hoppe, but that doesn't work because Hoppe's point is only valid if Discourse Ethics are true as well. So the first-use principle has no impact here because the fundamentals of Discourse Ethics are untrue in this context. So this means that Discourse Ethics DO NOT lead to the conclusion of total self-governance.

5. Again, you are jumping the gun. This argument is attacking the notions of Discourse Ethics, not the explicit claim made by Hoppe. What Milton Friedman points out is that Discourse Ethics are only being violated if one literally cannot argue or discuss. However, Friedman makes many historical examples of people arguing their case without having property rights. This is where the attack on Discourse Ethics undermines the property assertion. Since Discourse Ethics aren't being violated, there is no logical contradiction with arguing and not having property rights.

6. Sorry, you took my words too literally. Yes, Hoppe argues from a rights-retribution standpoint that you can violate another's rights if they violate your rights. However, the 2 impacts I make still stand because it shows that society can strip one of their rights to property under certain reasons. This shows that property rights are not total, and is not a prerequisite for Discourse.

II. Homesteading

1a. This logic still links into a consequential framework. This is true because the argument is not X (survival) is good because of the end Y (ability to argue). Thus, he is saying that survival is good because it prerequisite for argumentation first and foremost. As long as the end is what is important, just as he makes the assumption that Discourse Ethics are important, then consequentialism has to be prioritized first.

1b. Cross-apply my above responses that he isn't arguing that denying argumentation ethics creates a contradiction, since this would only be excluding people from moral discussion; he is arguing that denying property rights violates Discourse Ethics.

2a. He misses the point I am trying to make. Just saying go by the first-use first-own principle is too vague to be a brightline. The questions I posed put this principle into question. Many libertarians themselves cannot reconcile the first-use first-own principle with other seemingly close versions, such as the fencing principle. He keeps saying its whoever uses a plot of land first. What does that mean? Can I fence off 50 acres and call it mine or do I have to plow the 50 acres myself for it to be mine. If I hire a work crew to plow the land for me, does it make the land the person who plowed it most? Cause in that case the individual is working the land much more than I did, and he is mixing his labor with it. This is much too vague of a principle to establish a whole rights system off of it.

2b. This is a horrible system in the modern era. Most work is not done by individuals themselves; it isn't the 17th C anymore with Locke. Having other people work your property is how it is done today and thus isn't reconciled with the exact system of homesteading.

2c. This further warrants my argument made that social stratification occurs much within society, and by the set-up of my opponent would be exacerbated. This counter-acts the preempt he tried to make about expanding the wealth, since it shows that families exclusively would own wealth themselves.

3a. Cross-apply my response as to why it does matter.

3b. If this is the case then most land we have acquired isn't legitimately homesteaded and then legitimately acquired. This is true because a majority of land in some way was the result of great or imperial powers imposing their will. For example, most land in the US was taken by force from Native Americans or other countries, and those countries got them from indigenous peoples as well. At this point it's impossible to establish Hoppe's system effectively since none of it has been peacefully traded off or homesteaded or it can be but homesteading hits the problem of faux homesteading as I made above: that we aren't actually working the land, and other people have.

III. "Because I need it..."

1a. It means that this X resource has been allocated thusly and is not acquired by Y person. It is quite simple actually, and probably less incoherent than the vague notion of homesteading. Governments do exist today, and thus can manage the allocation of resources if necessary.

1b. Joke warrant: he is basically saying that this criterion is wrong because it goes against his thesis, and since his thesis is based on a presupposition, then it can't be possibly wrong.

2. I was basically pointing out that Hoppe's argument is essentially a link story. So, if any part of the Discourse Ethics are wrong, or the notion of homesteading is wrong, then this argument is kicked also as being invalid.

3. Consequentialism overrides. It can be based on the fact that "needing it" means one needs it for survival. As such, consequentialism would weigh the necessity of its allocation to a specific individual vs. the group or other individuals.

4. Discourse Ethics overrides. Interesting to note that Discourse Ethics would entail his system equally, if not better, than Hoppe's system because it ensures that the maximum amount of people are granted access to discourse.

IV. Restrictions on Rights

2. Cross-apply response.

V. Late-comers

1. This is a crucial point because my opponent tried to preempt an overarching harm, that in my opinion skews the entire Hoppe system. Remember, drops are concessions. Thus, we now have the harm of social stratification, which ended up being further warranted up in the top of my round. Social stratification ensures that sty does not necessarily become richer by the wealthy. Social stratification highly limits social mobility and keeps people in poverty. This int is separate from "late-comers" and refers to general society so saying he already preempted it with the argument at the body of the paragraph doesnt apply.

==Off-Case==

1. Consq.

A. XA

B. It completely is. The warrant I gave was flexibility which gives society the ability to fix the problems without being restrained by some overarching rule.

2. He misunderstands. If you refer to argument I spoke of international crises. Abolishing the state would prevent good countries from preventing humanitarian crisis. Thus, the notion of actual protection of people and property is turned.
Debate Round No. 2
LaissezFaire

Pro


I. DE


1a. First of all, why would you write ‘Hoppe doesn’t justify his assumption that ethics must be justified through argumentation’ as “No warrant is provided by Hoppe that tells us why discourse ethics are correct”? The entire argument is known as discourse ethics, not just that assumption. Second, Hoppe does explain why an ethical system must be derived from argumentation, I just left it out of my exposition of his theory because I thought it was obvious. How else would one derive an ethical system? It is true that a human ethic must be derived through argumentation because that fact could not be denied without contradicting oneself.


1b. This seems to be the exact same thing I said, just stated in a very convoluted way. To reiterate, Hoppe’s argument is that one must necessarily exercise property rights to make any argument at all, so any argument denying property rights must logically contradict itself.


2. As I’m sure the readers of this debate were able to discern, that is not at all what I said. But to reiterate: First, argumentation is universal. This is obvious—we can all communicate and argue. Second, argumentation ethics applies to any people capable of arguing, since it shows that anyone who tries to deny property rights through argumentation logically contradicts themself. So, if it applies to anyone capable of arguing, and we’re all capable of arguing, then it applies to all of us.


3. What’s that? Dropping the point about logic not being true? Yeah, that’s what I thought.


4. I do not need ownership of the entire body before being able to use the first-use first-own principal. Ownership over the entire body can be derived in a similar way that ownership over regular property is derived—such ownership is necessary for argumentation. Even though you don’t use your entire body for argumentation, you still must have control over it to argue, because that’s just the way bodies work—control is all or nothing.


5. Again, those are not examples of “people arguing their case without having property rights.” Even if someone is a slave, they still have a right to their own body, even if they don’t have the power to do what they want with it. Just because slave owners controlled slaves in practice does not mean they controlled them by right. So this doesn’t prove there’s no contradiction between arguing and not having property rights, it just shows that people can continue to argue while their rights are being violated, which is irrelevant. Hoppe’s point stands—people must use their physical bodies to argue, and so, by doing so, presuppose their rights to use their physical bodies.


6. I did not interpret your words too literally; you just communicated your idea poorly. And no, this still proves nothing. “Society” cannot strip people of their rights when it wants to, people can choose to forfeit their rights by violating the rights of others. There’s a big difference—property rights remain universal and absolute even if people can forfeit them. If someone commits a crime, it is not a property right violation to punish them, because they, in effect, consented to their punishment by failing to recognize the rights of others. A criminal cannot morally object to a punishment equal to that he exacted on his victim without logically contradicting himself.



II. Homesteading


1a. ”Thus, he is saying that survival is good because it prerequisite for argumentation first and foremost.” No, he isn’t. Hoppe merely says that survival is a prerequisite for argumentation, which is obviously not the same thing as saying survival is “good” because it is a prerequisite for argumentation.


1b. “Cross-apply my above responses that he isn't arguing that denying argumentation ethics creates a contradiction,” Yes, he is. That’s what the whole argument is.


2a. No, it isn’t. Locke’s “mixing one’s labor” is, but first-use first-own is different. Fencing off 50 acres doesn’t count, because you aren’t using the acres inside the fence. Plowing the land counts, because you are using the land. Paying people to homestead makes it yours, because even though they’re homesteading the land, you can have a contract with them to hand it over to you. All have clear bright lines, and are not vague at all.


2b. It doesn’t matter that people don’t do all of the jobs they want done themselves. Homesteading isn’t the only way to acquire property, it’s just the way unowned property is appropriated. Once property is homesteaded, it can be given away, bought or sold, whatever. So even though I didn’t, say, homestead my own house, I can still own it, because someone homesteaded it originally, sold it to someone else, who sold it, and so on, until I buy it.


2c. This is completely irrelevant to anything about rights. He’s basically saying that my argument is wrong because it would cause something he doesn’t like. So what? That’s not a counterargument.


3a. See my response to his response.


3b. This doesn’t show that Hoppe’s argument is wrong. If current property holdings aren’t legitimate, then that doesn’t prove Hoppe wrong, it just means that injustice has occurred. Hoppe’s argument is one of justice—it says what is just or unjust, not what actually is or could be.



III. "Because I need it..."


1a. Governments can allocate resources, obviously. My argument wasn’t that such distributions cannot occur, it was that they cannot occur by right.


1b. No, what I said was that this is correct if the rest of the argument is correct. I’m basically saying A implies B implies C implies D implies E (this point being E). Since I’ve shown A>B>C>D, this point follows. So, if I’ve proved the other parts, then it’s true too, and if I haven’t, then it doesn’t matter if this point is true because the argument is already wrong.


2. True, every part of argumentation ethics must be true for the whole to be true. But every part is true, so it’s fine.


3. Con can’t just assert that consequentialism overrides, as if that proves my argument wrong. The argument must be proven wrong first—you have to show that we don’t actually have property rights before you can override them, not just say they aren’t as important as someone’s survival.


4. Con misunderstands the point of argumentation ethics. The idea isn’t to maximize the amount of people that can engage in discourse, so it doesn’t matter if welfare rights would do this.



IV. Restrictions on Rights


2. Ditto.



V. Late-Comers


1. No, that is not what I did. It was a side point, one entirely irrelevant to Hoppe’s argument (try reading that paragraph without that part—the argument is still complete and makes sense, because it’s a side point, not actually part of the argument). My argument is one of rights, it doesn’t matter if Con shows that the consequences would be bad if society followed the private property ethic. Since Con completely dropped all of the arguments in this section, he has conceded them.



==Off Case==


1. Consequentialism


A. Ditto


B. Still not an argument. Con is just assuming positive consequences matter for moral questions (flexibility being the consequence in this case), and then saying that his system better meets that standard. This is obviously a ridiculous argument—he has to justify his point that morality is determined by the consequences of actions first.


2. Again, Con is just assuming that consequences matter. He’s failed to justify this, so his point is irrelevant. Furthermore, people still could help others in places that have humanitarian crises, they just couldn’t be forced to help.


CiRrK

Con

So, it has been a great debate. : )

So, for the last round ill go through the main voters for the round.

==Hoppe's Premises/Warrants==

First, on discourse ethics. My opponent in his last speech says that Hoppe does explain Discourse Ethics and that it is true because we derive human ethics from argumentation.

1. Its a little too late to finally try and warrant, since it is the last round

2. This is not completely true. Reading through "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism" leads me back to the same point. He starts his argument off with assuming Discourse Ethics being correct. In Ch. 3 which deals with "property rights, aggression, etc" he explains exactly what my opponent did in Rd. 1 and with no explanation of Discourse Ethics themselves.

3. Remember the note I put in Rd. 1? My opponent cant ad lib his own warrants. But, his warrant is itself just a reassertion of the premises of Discourse Ethics. He doesnt explain why the METHODOLOGY of arriving to ethical conclusions means that anything having to do with infringement ones ability to argue is inherently unethical. There would need to be a reason why that would be the case, not just the reassertion that it causes a contradiction.

4. Voter: Here is a clear vote Con. This is true because Hoppe is using an unjustified assumption to be the basis for his whole theory of property rights. As I said in the last round, his argument is one giant link story. So if any of the links are taken out, you vote Con.

Second, more on Discourse Ethics.

1. Control is not all or nothing. For example, your legs arent needed for argumentation, and thus isnt a prerequisite. As such, the state can remove your legs for w/e reason. And no, i dont buy this argument because im a consequentalist, but under Discourse Ethics that would fine because the state isnt impeding one's ability to argue. As such, one does not have completely control over the body, because Hoppe's argument is foundationally only propped up via Discourse Ethics.

2. You are misunderstanding Friedman's argument. Friedman laws it out like this: Hoppe says we have property rights because of the prerequisite of discourse. This means that property is NECESSARY for discourse. But Friedman tells us that historically that is not the case. Property is not needed to have argumentation. So Hoppe's general thesis lacks empirical weight.

3. Voter 2: Both arguments again attack the fundamental assumption that Hoppe makes about discourse and property. As such, no other part of his case matters at this point.

==Hoppe's Conclusions==

Third, on consequentialism

1. If Hoppe tells us that we can arrive to ethical norms through discourse, then he is implicitly saying that this methodology is good. Its obviously not bad because he rests his entire case on it. Thus, I take it a step further. What is the prerequisite for argumentation? And both of use agree, survival is. This implicitly tells us why consequentialism is ethically correct. It is correct because we only weigh things by end states. Even killing as a singular action is deemed bad because the end state is death. Killing wouldnt mean anything if that wasnt the case. Moreover, i would say to go against consequentialism is internally contradictory since everything is based on it.

2. Link to social stratification. He ignores this point. Hoppe's system doesnt solve for this, and as such the majority of society is in a hole because wealth doesnt permeate. Thus, de facto, people cannot access complete control over their selves because of the situation my opponent creates.

3. Link to humanitarian crises. My opponent simply states people CAN help but they arent forced too. This is the access to the impact. Unless we have some state who can intervene in humanitarian crises, then we are left with just a vague notion of people "maybe wanting" to "help".

4. Voter: Hoppe's argument is a net deficit for society. In both arguments, the notion of self-governance and property is literally being destroyed. Even if you value Hoppe's premises, you shouldnt by his conclusion of a stateless society. His idealistic view ultimately results in catastrophe.

*Great round!!*
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
(This is absolutely false. Things with logical contradictions are false. If religions believe otherwise, they are just wrong.)

Their are current philosophers such as Graham Priest who hold there are true contradictions. The problem with objections like these is that they can be used in any discussion and are abusive unless really relevant to the style or content of the debate.
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
Great, obvious vote0-abusers. >.>
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
Yeah, I sent him a message asking him to elaborate.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
mmc, it looks bad when anarchists vote for each other, especially when they do not give reasons. This was a very heated and technical debate so a lengthy RFD is not out of the question.

Casting a vote without an intelligent RFD is disrespectful to both participants. Neither Cliff or LF want to win/lose because of an arbitrary opinion.

(This goes for anyone else who has or will cast a flippant/poorly explained vote)
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
Thx for the elucidating RFD mcc :P
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
This has actually propted me to do a debate on the incompatibilities of self-ownership and homesteading, though I need to get proper definitions for them.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
Egh.. it looks like people have enough respect for the debate to not take it unseriously.
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
Refer to past comments for explanation.
Posted by ExNihilo 6 years ago
ExNihilo
"No warrant as to why something being contradictory is false. This is a western mindset that s no warranted basis. Many Eastern Religions, such as Daoism ind the greatest truth in contradictions. Moreover, proving a simple logical flow does not mean it is correct practice."

This seems like placing a response just to hope for an extension. This is absolutely false. Things with logical contradictions are false. If religions believe otherwise, they are just wrong. Logical contradictions are a test to proving the truth of a claim or its falsity. That is how we know round squares do not exist.
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
haha I dont think anyone is going to have the patience to read and vote on this one.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by askbob 5 years ago
askbob
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Reversing ExNihilo
Vote Placed by ExNihilo 5 years ago
ExNihilo
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully defeated the premise on which Pro's case was based. Discourse ethics is refuted.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: CiRrK was absolutely correct: I don't have the patience to read and sort out this debate, although I did read it. It is conducted entirely in the land of airy fairies and should be judged only by those who dwell there.
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 6 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made better arguments based on better evidence.
Vote Placed by mcc1789 6 years ago
mcc1789
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I accepted LaissezFaire's argument to begin with, and feel he successfully defended it against CiRrK, who mounted a great critique but nonetheless failed. Namely, I feel Pro upheld the argument from non-contradiction. I am not very familiar with the work of Hoppe, but it seems the argument he presupposes Discourse Ethics is wrong on the basis of logic, which he uses to support it. Pro also elaborated well on the homesteading principle under Con's questioning.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I found that Pro made assumptions and was not able to adequately back them up. Without those assumptions, the his entire case fell flat.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: This entire debate came down to CiRrK denying discourse ethics and thus then entire argument which followed from LaissezFaire which rendered almost all of the debate a side issue. LaissezFaire defended this by simply saying it could not be refuted which is a gross simplification of Moral Philosophy. 1 pt to LaissezFaire as CiRrk spammed arguments heavily, 1 pt to CiRrK for LaisseFaire assuming validation, 1 pt to CiRrK for the point about parts/whole in argumentation being necessary
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: unvoting because I don't want to even think about this anymore