Liberty Roadmap

Can you find the error in this quote from Sacred Economics by Charles Eisenstein? Imagine what would happen if, all of a sudden, a magical technology were found that could double the productivity of every worker. Now the same amount of goods is available with half the labor. If (as in a steady-state or degrowth economy) demand does not increase, then half the workers are now superfluous. To stay competitive, firms must fire half their workers, make them part-time, or pay them less. Aggregate wages will fall by half since no one will pay workers more than the revenues they...

By Dave Burns Vote3 0

Scott Adams, the cartoonist who draws Dilbert, has been making predictions about Trump's candidacy since July 2015. He claims a 10 for 10 record, the only "pundit" who thinks he understands what Trump is doing. He bases his analysis on his experience as a certified hypnotist. He credits Trump with remarkable skills of persuasion. Why call it "persuasion?" Adams describes his experience with hypnosis as "programming the moist robot." He doesn't mean trances, he means convincing someone at a gut level, without brilliant (or even logical) arguments. This idea of programming the moist robot falls in the category of manipulation...

By Dave Burns Vote10 4

On Facebook, I saw an ancom ask to have someone explain how capitalism and anarchism can go together. This was my response. An ancap thinks that capitalism and anarchism fit together like time and space. They are orthogonal, independent. No, that’s not quite right, the state influences the market, so influences capitalism. My problem is, I don’t know how to define capitalism, and other people seem to use it inconsistently. Did millers own windmills under feudalism? Weren’t there shoe makers? Artisans and traders? Seems like the capitalism Marx complained about is all about factories, not private ownership of the means...

By Dave Burns Vote3 0

Hello world!

By Dave Burns Vote4 2

Criticizing libertarians Pet peeves griper griping

By Dave Burns Vote5 8

Below is my comment from an article titled Psychologists are known for being liberal but is that because they understand how people think? I agree with Katharine and Thomas that Prof. Berkman’s characterization of libertarian ideas is a bit off, and that he could just as reasonably adjust his ideas about what libertarianism implies as jump to a different camp. “[P]rotecting individual liberties was the highest purpose of law.” I can go along with this one. But “the government should have no role in shaping people’s behavior” needs some unpacking. Does a law against murder count as shaping behavior or...

By Dave Burns Vote9 6

In a previous post I attempted to paraphrase Hoppe’s idea of argumentation ethics. Now I wish to criticize my argument. First I have two general critiques, then I will go through the argument step by step. Hoppe would reject my restatement of his argument. My version of Hoppe’s argument depends on neuroscience, which makes it an empirical argument. If neuroscience turns out to have been wrong, my argument may also be wrong. Hoppe wants to base his argument on unquestionable a priori premises. So he would not accept my empirical restatement of his argument. I question the philosophical context of a priori justification....

By Dave Burns Vote2 1

In this post I update some rough ideas I discussed in my previous post titled "Who owns my brain?" Here is a sketch of the argument, followed by discussion. My mind and brain developed together as a cohesive inseparable whole. My brain cannot be separated from me and still be used as a living, healthy brain. The development of my mind and brain counts as an instance of homesteading or first appropriation. I own my brain exclusively as a result of homesteading or first appropriation. Non-private-property ethics entail that no one owns anything exclusively or as a result of first appropriation....

By Dave Burns Vote2 3

Historicism asserts that the logical structure of human thought and action is liable to change in the course of historical evolution. [Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action, page 5.] Below we will show that propositions concerning property justice must be compatible with argumentation. They can satisfy this condition in one of two ways, either by describing universal truths that apply to all persons at all times, or by describing arbitrary truths that depend upon the act of argumentation. So persons who wish to formulate a proposition that describes a principle of justice have three alternatives: Embrace incompatibility with argumentation and therefore...

By Dave Burns Vote8 5

My purpose in this blog post is to try to separate and identify the various critical issues within Hoppe's argumentation ethics, so that critics and proponents may agree on the basic logic and concentrate their attention instead on areas of actual disagreement. Several of Hoppe's critics have provided attempts to formalize his logic and have pointed out various fallacies in the versions they supplied. Frederick is foremost in my mind as an example, though Long and perhaps Murphy and Callahan qualify. However, anyone can write down a sketch of an opponent's argument and then attack the straw man. A charitable...

By Dave Burns Vote13 5

Is the idea of a property ethic coherent? Which ideas of property justice are compatible with argumentation? Is justice in property timeless and universal, or contingent on history or persons involved? The questions above divide the world of possibilities into 4 possibilities of interest: The idea of a property ethic is incoherent. Property ethics that are incompatible with argumentation can be true. Historically contingent or particularistic property ethics that are compatible with argumentation can be true. Only timeless, universal property ethics that are compatible with argumentation can be true. I will attempt to show that the idea of a property...

By Dave Burns Vote9 22

Here are some Hoppe quotes and my responses. I demonstrate that only the libertarian private property ethic can be justified argumentatively, because it is the praxeological presupposition of argumentation as such; EEPP p341. Why does he use this phrase, "justified argumentatively", rather than "true" or some other more specific phrase? One possible interpretation is that he wants to avoid actually arguing that the private property ethic is true, that he is satisfied to show that all the others have more problems. This would leave open the possibility that none are true. If the private property ethic is indeed the praxeological presupposition...

By Dave Burns Vote7 10

Danny Frederick criticizes Hoppe's recognition argument in the second section of his paper "Hoppe’s Derivation of Self-Ownership from Argumentation: Analysis and Critique" (Reason Papers Vol. 35, no. 1). This blog entry will raise questions about that critique. Frederick's presentation of Hoppe's ideas provides an unusually clear discussion. Even when I disagree, he helps me to understand. I agree that Hoppe's explanation makes it hard for the reader to understand the flow of Hoppe's argument, in the sense that I can read all of Hoppe's words and not know how Hoppe intends his argument to hold together. But I think Frederick has misinterpreted...

By Dave Burns Vote12 11

Hoppe claims that argumentation presupposes self-ownership. Is his self-ownership the normative, prescriptive self-ownership of the NAP, or is it a purely descriptive, positive description of bodily self-control? We can interpret ownership as purely positive and descriptive, a description of who possesses and uses what. The descriptive interpretation of "argument presupposes self-ownership" makes sense - in order to engage in argumentation, your mind must control your body. As soon as this stops, so will argument. If it resumes, argument may also resume. So argument presupposes self-ownership in this practical sense. But Hoppe cannot derive his desired conclusion from this. All he...

By Dave Burns Vote8 14

"We ought not argue." This can only be asserted if you argue, as part of an argument. So it contradicts itself. If it is true, you ought not say it and you ought not to argue at all. By arguing, you demonstrate your disbelief of this proposition. Your actions implicitly affirm that you disbelieve the proposition that we ought not argue. (Or do you? Perhaps you affirm "we ought not argue, but I don't obey the rules.") Am I entitled to claim that "We ought not argue" is false? Does that mean you believe the logical negation of it? What's...

By Dave Burns Vote7 5

I feel like starting over. Very briefly, here is my latest attempt to explain Hoppe's argumentation ethics, pared down to the most modest possible claims. Denial is a kind of argumentation. Argumentation pre-supposes that participants in argumentation always own their brains. No ethic that denies that people always own their brains can be justified argumentatively. If I own my brain I own my body. If I own my body I can homestead and own the food I use to fuel and replenish my brain and body. If I can own and homestead food, what is there I can't own? Here...

By Dave Burns Vote5 43

We find the central, critical, controversial claim of Hoppe's argumentation ethics where he writes, the fact of self-ownership is a praxeological precondition of argumentation (The Ethics and Economics of Private Property, page 412). In his original article on the topic, he expressed this idea as no one could propose anything or become convinced of any proposition by argumentative means if a person’s right to exclusive use of his physical body were not presupposed (EEPP page 400). I have always had difficulty understanding this part of Hoppe's argument. How does he support this claim? The second quote mentions a right to...

By Dave Burns Vote6 9

I am still having trouble understanding Hoppe's argumentation ethics. Here is my latest sketch of Hoppe's Argument: Using reasons and evidence to deny a proposition is a kind of argument. Deny a necessary precondition or premise of an argument and you deny that argument. Any argument that denies a necessary precondition of the activity of argumentation denies the basis of argumentation, and so contradicts itself. The act of argumentation itself presupposes self-ownership. Any argument that denies self-ownership, contradicts itself. Proposition 1 is obvious, by definition. Proposition 2 says that an argument cannot take place if some necessary precondition is missing. The act...

By Dave Burns Vote11 4

In this post, I intend to suggest helpful improvements to the Consequentialism FAQ by Scott Siskind. I recommend it. If I do not quote and try to "improve" a passage, you may assume I agree with it (more or less). I consider myself a consequentialist, though probably not a utilitarian. (Perhaps I follow a peculiar version of rule utilitarianism? Basically, I concede most of the concepts behind the various "this proves utilitarianism" lifeboat scenarios, without committing to generalizations from such edge cases. Hopefully this will clarify itself as I proceed.) I think the FAQ is aimed at people more or...

By Dave Burns Vote20 2

I want to reverse-engineer definitions of argument and self-ownership in a way that makes Hoppe's argumentation ethics make sense. Here is my summary of Hoppe’s argument, from my previous article, with a small addition: Argument presupposes self-ownership. Argument is universal, so self-ownership is universal. Denial is a form of argument, so self-ownership can’t be denied without arguing. Any argument that denies self-ownership denies argument, and so contradicts itself. Hoppe's argument fails if his critics can find some way to deny self-ownership other than argument. So we must define the category of argument broadly. But it also must exclude nonsense. Here...

By Dave Burns Vote3 1

Spot the sacred goof May 22, 2016

Is Donald Trump the antichrist? Jan 25, 2016

Explaining ancaps to ancoms Jan 3, 2016

Steve Rose of Anarchist Standard interviews Dave Burns Dec 19, 2015

Criticizing libertarians Oct 25, 2015

Another libertarian apostate Jul 19, 2015

Do I own my brain? Jun 15, 2015

Who owns my brain? V0.1 Jun 7, 2015

Universalizability, argumentation compatibility, and historicism Jan 18, 2015

What is incompatible with argumentation? Dec 31, 2014

What did Hoppe’s critics miss? Dec 28, 2014

Hoppe questions Dec 26, 2014

Frederick versus Hoppe Dec 22, 2014

That which argumentation presupposes Dec 15, 2014

We ought not argue Dec 14, 2014

Who owns my brain? Dec 12, 2014

Argumentation Presupposes Self-ownership Dec 10, 2014

Understanding Hoppe Nov 27, 2014

Improving on consequentialism Nov 16, 2014

Reverse-engineering Hoppe Nov 12, 2014