From the Mises blog, Nov. 25, 2009
(Archived comments below)
I’ve done a good deal of writing on Hoppe’s argumentation ethics defense of libertarian rights and related matters (see Revisiting Argumentation Ethics, Mises and Argumentation Ethics). I was reminded recently of Guido Hülsmann’s superb and unique presentation of argumentation ethics in his paper “The A Priori Foundations of Property Economics,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 7, no. 4 (Winter 2004), in particular the section “The Foundations of Property Economics,” starting on p. 50. It’s really an excellent take on this, and has a fantastic discussion of the nature of appropriation, including his “Counterfactual Analysis of Appropriation.” Highly recommended for those interested in argumentation ethics.
In his paper, Hülsmann draws on the work of both Reinach and Hoppe. The paper was based on a presentation at a symposium on “Austrian Law and Economics: The Contributions of Reinach and Rothbard” held at the Ludwig von Mises Institute on March 29-30, 2001, papers resulting from which were published in Vol. 7, no. 4 (Winter 2004) of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. The late Larry Sechrest also presented a paper, Praxeology, Economics, and Law: Issues and Implications, which also discusses argumentation ethics at pp. 36-38. For further information on Reinach’s writings, see Adolf Reinach’s “The Apriori Foundations of the Civil Law” and “On The Concept of Causality in the Criminal Law,” by Adolf Reinach. For additional material on argumentation ethics, see Revisiting Argumentation Ethics.
November 25, 2009 at 12:33 pm-
He also slaps Coase around real nice. I could almost see him smiling while writing it.
November 25, 2009 at 2:49 pm-
Hulsmann drops the ball here:
“The settling of conflict requires some form of communication and argument. But arguing would be
senseless if it could not change the opinions and actions of others. The point is precisely that we want our discussion partners to think and act differently. We acknowledge that they have control over their wills and bodies, and moreover we want them to exercise this control. In other words, in any exchange of argument, all discussion partners agree at least on two things: (1) that each of them is the factual owner of his will and body, and (2) that each of them should exercise this control.”We may want them to exercise that control *given that they have it*, but that does not mean we agree that they “should” have such control in the first place. Hulsmann cooks up a normative statement out of nothing.
- November 25, 2009 at 4:36 pm
-
We may want them to exercise that control *given that they have it*, but that does not mean we agree that they “should” have such control in the first place. Hulsmann cooks up a normative statement out of nothing.
Uh, isn’t that kind of the point?
November 25, 2009 at 5:13 pm-
Talk about an uncharitable (and wrong) reading of Coase.
November 25, 2009 at 6:06 pm-
Fourier = [bad word]
November 25, 2009 at 7:06 pm-
one-liners are the white noise of blogs.
- November 25, 2009 at 7:14 pm
-
Vol. 7, no. 4 (Winter 2004) of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.
this link doesn’t work
- November 25, 2009 at 9:50 pm
-
Good job Guido. You think Coase doesn’t understand that value is subjective.
Only the Austrians ever realised that! (Except those that realised it too much — like Hayek, he was wrong too).
- November 26, 2009 at 6:57 am
-
How nice of Fourier to [DELETED] share his wisdom here.
- November 26, 2009 at 9:02 am
-
Don’t you have [DELETED]
- November 26, 2009 at 9:24 am
-
[DELETED]
November 26, 2009 at 3:26 pm-
My first visit to the Mises blog. Hoping this discussion isn’t representative of the normal level of dialogue here.
- November 26, 2009 at 3:45 pm
-
Mandelbrot, when Fourier’s involved, it is.
November 26, 2009 at 4:44 pm-
Beefcake thinks he’s doing economics. Poor him, if only he read something other than A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism.
- November 26, 2009 at 7:29 pm
-
Fourier is [DELETED]
November 27, 2009 at 2:25 pm-
Actually dear Fourier, he is doing economics. You on the other hand… econostrology? Maybe.
- November 28, 2009 at 7:14 am
-
[DELETED]
- November 28, 2009 at 8:05 am
-
Fourier [DELETED]
- November 28, 2009 at 9:15 am
-
Inquisitioner, what type of economics is he doing? My history of thought of this area is bad. But it seems to me that he’s doing insulticism[DELETED]
- November 28, 2009 at 9:49 am
-
Fourier, [DELETED]
- November 28, 2009 at 10:08 am
-
[DELETED]
- November 28, 2009 at 2:20 pm
-
[DELETED]
- November 28, 2009 at 2:59 pm
-
[DELETED]
- November 28, 2009 at 10:15 pm
-
Economics of planned economies. But you knew that, didn’t you? Or no wait you probably didn’t because you’re a clueless troll. Also, l2read, it’s Inquisitor.
- November 29, 2009 at 9:51 am
-
Inquisitioner, who are you? What are you doing here?
Why are you preaching Hellsmennian Irrelevanticism and Hoppean Insulticism.
December 6, 2009 at 9:54 am- December 6, 2009 at 11:52 am
-
Shouldn’t ALL of Fouriers posts be deleted? He’s just trying to be insulting.
- December 6, 2009 at 6:52 pm
- December 6, 2009 at 9:06 pm
-
Stephan,
It’s a seasonal mutation I go through. In truth, I prefer the purple light, so I’ve gone back to it. I may, however, change my title from Lord to Pope. Still thinking about it.
December 6, 2009 at 10:04 pm-
you’re safer with “lord”. pope’s have been fond of proffering the ring for kissing.
but more importantly, this link still doesn’t work!
Vol. 7, no. 4 (Winter 2004) of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.
- December 6, 2009 at 10:17 pm
-
[bad word]? isn’t that a tad too quaint?
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }