• Conza88's Avatar
    01-13-2018, 02:09 AM
    Yo rev-3.0, What are you thoughts on the action axiom? “The attempt to disprove the action-axiom would itself be an action aimed at a goal, requiring means, excluding other courses of action, incurring costs, subjecting the actor to the possibility of achieving or not achieving the desired goal and so leading to a profit or a loss. And the very possession of such knowledge then can never be disputed, and the validity of these concepts can never be falsified by any contingent experience, for disputing or falsifying anything would already have presupposed their very existence. As a matter of fact, a situation in which these categories of action would cease to have a real existence could itself never be observed, for making an observation, too, is an action.” — Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method
    61 replies | 1305 view(s)
  • Conza88's Avatar
    01-13-2018, 02:03 AM
    Embarrassing. He is not, and he literally stated the opposite carte blanche. I mean; you have nothing to object to given his statement that Ought-statements cannot be derived from is-statements. They belong to different logical realms. Hopefully this helps: Separate natures of justification and acting “We now address further the question of whether the APoA a priori of argumentation] and its grounding of the NAP and property theory are part of “ethics” in a normative sense or can be considered a purely descriptive account that can be placed within praxeology as an “is” science. Hoppe’s “normative” formulations of the APoA as applied to the NAP are a priori “is” statements made with regard to certain “norms.” However, these particular norms are inescapable implications of propositional discourse itself. These a priori “normative” statements are therefore not in the form of the “ought” statements commonly associated with the “normative” sphere of ethics. Rather, they delimit the sphere of “is”-level conceptual possibility. That Hoppe’s formulations take the form of “is” statements regarding justifiable norms explains both the magnitude of this innovation and the challenge of interpreting these arguments with conventional categories. A primary Hoppean APoA “is” statement is that the NAP can be justified in propositional discourse, while any conceivable contradictory alternative to the NAP cannot be justified without performative contradiction. This gains additional significance because propositional discourse is the only method through which justification can be accomplished. Therefore, if one wants to justify a norm with regard to the issues addressed by property rights, there is only one possibility, the NAP. Hoppe writes:
    61 replies | 1305 view(s)
  • Conza88's Avatar
    01-12-2018, 06:59 AM
    "monopolizing defense and rights protection (though not necessarily through a"state")" = That's only possible through a state... and that's only understandable if you understand economics. "A and B decide to pay for the building of a dam for their uses; C benefits though he did not pay.... This is the problem of the Free Rider. Yet it is difficult to understand what the hullabaloo is all about. Am I to be specially taxed because I enjoy the sight of my neighbor's garden without paying for it? A's and B's purchase of a good reveals that they are willing to pay for it; if it indirectly benefits C as well, no one is the loser" (I, p. 25). —Murray Rothbard, Logic of Action Go ahead.... tell me how that justifies the state (monopoly of ultimate decision making including conflicts involving itself w/ the ability to tax).
    714 replies | 11775 view(s)
  • Conza88's Avatar
    01-12-2018, 06:48 AM
    Classic. This showcases you don't know what Hoppe's A priori of argumentation (APoA) actually is. “Second, there is the logical gap between “is-” and “ought-statements” which natural rights proponents have failed to bridge successfully—except for advancing some general critical remarks regarding the ultimate validity of the fact-value dichotomy. Here the praxeological proof of libertarianism has the advantage of offering a completely value-free justification of private property. It remains entirely in the realm of is-statements and never tries to derive an “ought” from an “is.” The structure of the argument is this: (a) justification is propositional justification—a priori true is-statement; (b) argumentation presupposes property in one’s body and the homesteading principle—a priori true is-statement; and (c) then, no deviation from this ethic can be argumentatively justified—a priori true is-statement.
    61 replies | 1305 view(s)
No More Results
About priest_of_syrinx

Basic Information

Date of Birth
July 29, 1992 (25)
About priest_of_syrinx
Biography:
I only became seriously interested in politics when I found out about Dr. Paul.
Interests:
Music, playing trumpet, guitar, bass guitar, composing, filling out "interests" forms.....
Occupation:
Student
Political Campaign Skills
Entertainers and Events:
Band / Musician

Signature


I just don't know what went wrong!

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
660
Posts Per Day
0.18
General Information
Last Activity
01-31-2016 01:08 AM
Join Date
11-06-2007
Referrals
0

2 Friends

  1. Conza88 Conza88 is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via MSN to Conza88
    Conza88
  2. yongrel yongrel is offline

    Member

    yongrel
Showing Friends 1 to 2 of 2
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...