19. “Argumentation Ethics and The Philosophy of Freedom”
Abstract: When H.-H. Hoppe claimed (in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, 1989) that the principles of libertarianism were argumentatively irrefutable, both the logical coherence and the relevance of his “argument from argumentation” were criticized. While occasionally some of these criticisms still crop up, this paper defends Hoppe’s claim against them from the vantage point of the author’s own work (in Dutch) on the ethics of dialogue in the nineteen-seventies. It presents a more detailed and systematic presentation of the “argument from argumentation” than Hoppe had need for in the particular context of his book. It makes a distinction between arguments about principles and arguments about particular cases in which these principles may be invoked; and between the normative validity (as a matter of principle) of certain presumptions and the fact that in particular cases these presumptions hold only in principle and can be refuted by the evidence pertaining to the cases.
![[RSS Feed]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
This was an interesting article. Does the author have more English-language material on this subject, and if so what is recommended.
Yes he has, for example this one;
http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/11/rp_11_2.pdf
And in a more indirect sense;
http://www.rothbard.be/english/articles/pragmatism-and-liberty
[...] scholars–as well as from established libertarian intellectuals such as Narveson, Higgs, van Dun, Salin, Kukathas, Block, and Machan. And, astoundingly, in our first half year we have published [...]
[...] “Argumentation Ethics and The Philosophy of Freedom”, by Frank Van Dun. [...]
“Freedom among likes is the presupposition of argumentation, and cannot be denied in an argumentation.”
It strikes me that the approach in this article is to begin with an unity of degree of man. From that unity follows follows every aspect of argumentation ethics which cannot be overturned in the subsequent argument.
May it be said that argumentation ethics are ‘self evident’ truths?