Notes on the Argumentation Ethics, Part II
Suppose that a robber in a restaurant yells at the customers: “I am not going to argue with you; just give me all your money. Any of you fucking pricks move, and I’ll execute every motherfucking last one of ya!” Hoppe’s argument fails to convict the robber of irrationality.
Similarly, suppose that in some bar a bouncer is throwing out a rowdy drunk. The bouncer tells him in no uncertain terms: “Shut up and don’t argue with me, or I’ll call the cops on you!” Again, Hoppe’s argument does not establish whether the bouncer is right or wrong.
I have written that “Hoppe’s argument fails to establish the content of my property rights. Exactly what am I allowed to do with my property and what are you allowed to do so as not to infringe on my rights? How is the ‘bundle of rights’ to be distributed? The argument is sterile. At most, it shows that you are allowed to use your property for arguing, nothing more.” These examples confirm my judgment. As Murphy and Callahan argue, “Hoppe has shown that bashing someone on the head is an illogical form of argumentation. He has not shown that the fact that one has ever argued demonstrates that one may never bash anyone on the head, nor has he demonstrated that one may not validly argue that it would be a good thing to bash so-and-so on the head. We cannot convince you of anything by clubbing you, but we may quite logically try to convince you that we should have the right to club you.”
See also: Part I.
Posted: March 25th, 2009 under Ethics, Philosophy.