| Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes from time to time on the time on his basis of the libertarian ethic, which he calls argumentation ethics. As he describes it, in order to justify something, you must justify it in argument. Therefore, certain presuppositions necessary to argumentation must hold, lest the whole theory collapse from a defective foundation. Here I will quote from The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, pp. 341-342: | ハンスヘルマンホッペ（Ｈａｎｓ－Ｈｅｒｍａｎ Ｈｏｐｐｅ）が時々自分の議論倫理と言う自由の倫理について書く。正当化することなら議論で正当化することだと記述する。だから議論の予断が持たないと、論理が根拠の残欠で崩壊する。「私有財産の経済学と倫理学」のｐ．３４１－３４２に書く： |
The question of what is just or unjust … only arises insofar as I am, and others are, capable of propositional exchanges. … [I]f this is so, … then any ethical proposal … must be assumed to claim that it is capable of being validated by propositional or argumentative means. … [I]t must be considered the ultimate defeat for an ethical proposal if one can demonstrate that its content is logically incompatible with the proponent’s claim that its validity be ascertainable by argumentative means. … |
何が正義か不正義かの質問が…私たち人間は提案的な交換することが出来るほどだけ現れる。…なら、あらゆる論理の提案が提案的な、議論的な方法で正当性を証明できると主張することになる。…倫理の提案の究極の敗北がその内容が議論的な方法で正当化する主張と矛盾すること、と考えるべきです。… |
[T]he means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private property. … [A]nyone who tried to justify any norm whatsoever would already have to presuppose the exclusive right of control over his body as a valid norm simply in order to say, “I propose such and such.” … |
提案的な交換をする人の示した手段が私有財産の手段です。…どんな典型を提案する人が「これを提案する」と言うために自分の身体を排他的に制御することを予断する。 |
Furthermore, it would be equally impossible to sustain argumentation … if one were not allowed to appropriate in addition to one’s body other scarce means through homesteading action. |
もう一つ、人が身体と加わって別の不足な手段をホームステッドで充当することが許されないなら…議論を維持も不可能になる。 |
| Let’s grant that arguments that contradict the tenets of argumentation are invalid. Hoppe, however, begs the question when asserting that that means an absolute system of private property. A couple of men could have a full-fledged argument under complete socialism. The society sets aside time and space for the debate, and grants to the two the privilege of free expression for it. Since, under socialism, society has absolute authority, it certainly has the authority to arrange this. | 議論の原理と矛盾する議論が根拠なしと認めよう。だが、それから絶対的な私有財産の制度になる主張で、ホッペが循環論法する。完全な社会主義の下でも人が本格的な議論ができる。社会が議論の為に時間と空間を配置し、数人に表現の特権を許す。社会主義では社会には絶対な権力を持つんだから、そうする権力を必ず持つ。 |
| Can you object that what occurs is not an argument? Then that objection must carry, to some extent, to all arguments that occur outside of a pure private property society. Yet, it is still possible that the socialist debate may strike on something that is justified. Is the conclusion invalidated by the circumstances under which the debate occurred? | その出来事が議論じゃないと講義できる？ならば、その講義が大なり小なり純潔な私有財産の社会の外に起こる議論にも繰り上げるはずでござる。でも、社会主義の議論でも正当なことに当たるかも知らない。起こる環境で議論の結論が無効になるか？ |
| It is not; a true proposition is true (or just, in the context of ethics) without any respect to the circumstances surrounding its discovery. | 否。正しい提案（倫理学では正当な提案）が発見の環境には関係なく正しいでござる。 |
| One can just as easily claim that all debates presuppose socialism as individualism. Simply: Society, the locus of all authority under socialism, always exists where two or more people interact. Even two seemingly atomistic “individualists” who engage in a debate are actually forming a society by their own actions, and therefore the debate occurs with Society’s blessing. A larger society, with more socialized members, could do much better, of course; just ask any socialist. | 議論の予断が「個人主義」みたいに「社会主義」に簡単に基づくと主張できる。ほれ、社会主義で全権力を持つ社会が人の相互作用で常に存在する。「個人主義者」と名乗る二人でも、議論を始めることで自分の行動で社会に体系付けることで、社会の権力の下で議論する。当然、もっと大きい、もっと社会化した人を持った社会ならもっとよくできる、社会主義者の意見では。 |
| What I really find outright silly about Hoppe’s theory is that, if I’m right, it presupposes things that are perfectly sufficient to prove private property, without all that circumlocution, but fails to recognize it. Right from the start, it is never questioned that, in one of these debates, both participants possess equal rights. Historically, it’s a common argument: “I don’t need to listen to your objections, you are by nature subordinate to me.” Give both sides equal rights, and acknowledge the individual’s intrinsic worth, and the social order of private property is the conclusion. | 拙者が可笑しいに思うホッペの理論の点が、拙者が正しければ、私有財産を婉曲法なし正当化する予断もあるが、ホッペ自身が気付かない。最初から、議論では「両社が匹敵な権利を持つ」ことを疑わない。歴史上、「私がおまえの異論に聞く必要はない。貴賎の性質で、おまえが微賎だ。」と言うのががありふれた議論でござる。両方に匹敵な権利を上げ、個人の内在的な価値を認めることだけで、私有財産の社会制度が結論になる。 |
Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics
Bookmark the permalink.