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

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.