People who would say “No, I don’t own my own body” and “No, I don’t have the right to external objects first appropriated by me” are few and far between, at least among the vast majority of people you and I will ever meet.

Let’s see. If you don’t own your own body, who does? Of course some cultures may say “God”, but they are irrational. And if you don’t have rights to external objects first appropriated by you, then who does? What is the alternative? Waiting for permission from every concievable future appropriator, all of mankind…who? One could say “yes” to that question, but they will have undoubtedly violated their own argument.

Again, Hoppe would acknowledge that many cultures exist, and even thrive, with no understanding of this rather extreme Anglo-Saxon derived sense of individual autonomy (though partially inspired by Jurgen Habermas), but Hoppe is interested in positing a logical defense of libertarianism in the tradition of Western philosophy.

I’ve got Hoppe’s answer to Yeager at home, I can dig into it when I get back.

“Political ideology has substantial heritability, but I think that’s mostly in conservative/liberal attitudes.”

If I’d inherited a political orientation from my parents I’d be largely apolitical, but with a twinge of cranky Old Right sensibilities. So actually, I’d say the heritability theory holds with me too. That small but perceptible political orientation on my father’s part is definitely a part of my overall makeup.

My girlfriend is an LGBT supporting Social Democrat. Perhaps we’ll spawn the perfect Left Libertarian.

He’s still trying to locate a copy of a piece that he wrote on Michaal Shermer
Speaking of him, didn’t he support the Iraq war? Grr!

people can of course physically utter all kinds of nonsense
If rejecting Hoppe’s libertarianism is nonsense, that it something to be proved entirely outside Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. Hoppe has not demonstrated that they are being inconsistent.

as I mentioned above, he explained to me that his biggest concern is not to prove that a libertarian approach will result in an “optimal” result in some sense but merely that it will not result in catastrophe
Satisficing?

someone who is sufficiently sociopathic [...] I think we can ignore that possibility in your case
Hold your horses!

What does Vaclav Havel have to do with anything?
Raimondo dismissed him as an American stooge.

enforces the rules that the rest of society lives by and by doing so necessarily is meta to those rules
Rules are not synonymous with laws. I agree that as the government is a distinct institution, it is not surprising that different rules might apply to it.

It’s pretty much assured that my kids will become philosophical anarchists, because to not be pissed about this asymmetry and master-slave relationship is to be no kid of mine
Political ideology has substantial heritability, but I think that’s mostly in conservative/liberal attitudes.

Yep, it’s not fair but that’s the way it is. I don’t get to pull over a cop for speeding simply because he felt like it.

It’s pretty much assured that my kids will become philosophical anarchists, because to not be pissed about this asymmetry and master-slave relationship is to be no kid of mine!

P. Dave said The problem is that most people are inconsistent in not holding agents of government to the same rules as everyone else.
If they were held to the same rules, they wouldn’t be part of the government. The gov, by definition, enforces the rules that the rest of society lives by and by doing so necessarily is meta to those rules.

Yeah, I know. Where I think Hoppe fails is that someone could honestly, logically say “I make no claim at all to have the right to speak, breathe or anything else. Right now, I am able to get away with doing this, and I sort of hope that I shall continue to get away with it. But who knows? I have no rights – and neither do you!”

In a nutshell, someone really could refrain from speaking or thinking in terms of rights ideas at all. I see nothing illogical there.

Do any people actually do this? Very few, I think.

The idea of natural rights, and morality more generally, are natural, understandable emergent phenomena that have developed for evolutionary-psychological, game-theoretic/economic, etc. sorts of reasons. Almost all human societies and most human beings do indeed think in such terms, most especially when it is their own rights being violated!

So, yes, I agree with Hoppe that most humans who violate others’ natural rights are in fact being inconsistent, since most humans do, for understandable reasons, choose to think in moral terms.

But, logically, they don’t have to. If some human does rigorously eschew any sort of ethical thoughts or speech whatsoever, I do not see how his violating others’ rights can be logically inconsistent – although, of course, the rest of us might want to treat him as he treats all of us and “solve” the problem of his existence without any reference to ethical concerns ourselves!

Dave

Yes, I believe that is correct. And, I do not think David makes any pretense of even using classic full-blown utilitarian arguments – “the greatest good of the greatest number,” etc. His approach seems to be more along the lines of: “This is what is likely to happen factually; don’t you think that will really be pretty good?” If someone replies, “No, I hate the idea of peace, prosperity, etc.,” he will probably just shrug and move on to a more productive conversation.

And, as I mentioned above, he explained to me that his biggest concern is not to prove that a libertarian approach will result in an “optimal” result in some sense but merely that it will not result in catastrophe. That is a very weak form of utilitarianism, which nearly everyone agrees with.

Assuming I understand Dave correctly, all of this is quite unimpeachable. Indeed, Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, et al. often tried to do exactly the same thing. In fact, Mises and Rothbard were both very insistent that economics per se can and should be rigorously “wertfrei” (value-free) and that the approach followed by David is the right approach for an economist when acting solely in his professional role.

Nonetheless, David of course does have some views on morality, and I would like to hear what those views are and why he holds them.

Dave

P.S. Someday I’ll have to see if I can convince you that you really are a natural rightist after all – I actually think that a sufficiently thoughtful, intelligent person ends up being a natural rightists even if he dislikes the way natural rights are usually formulated. I think that self-interest and a natural modicum of sympathy for other human beings results in a commitment to natural rights (my point is not original, of course; Rand and many others have tried to argue the same point). I will concede that someone who is sufficiently sociopathic in his underlying emotions and motives could be intelligent and yet consistently reject natural rights (and all of ethics), but I think we can ignore that possibility in your case (and most humans’ cases).

SJSU has no particular policy, or if they do it isn’t enforced. I should sit in.

I saw Friedman at Freedom Fest 04. Very sharp mind, moving a mile a minute.

One of my best friends is a confused nihilist, not even able to acknowledge that he relies on property rights and bourgeois reciprocity to bring him his favorite food and avant garde German music. His refusal to believe this doesn’t create a rift in time and space, he’s just being silly.

Great thread. I’ll stay out of it, except to mention that I finally received Lou’s new afterword to The Myth, and it’s really good. Really funny, actually, in a dead-pan sort of way. He’s still trying to locate a copy of a piece that he wrote on Michaal Shermer, and as soon as I receive that last morsel, the collection will be ready for final proofing; then it’s press time. In the next couple of months, the 9BB site will be revamped and relaunched as well. I shall keep you informed.

Best, -Chip