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

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.