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

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!!*