Hans-Hermann Hoppe/Intimidation by Argument—Once Again

http://www.libertyunbound.com/sites/files/printarchive/Liberty_Magazine_November_1989.pdf

Loren Lomasky was intimidated and angered by my book A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. The book is more ambitious than its title indicates. "It is," he laments, "no less than a manifesto for untrammeled anarchism." So be it. But so what? As explained in my book-but conveniently left unmentioned by Lomasky-untrammeled anarchism is economy, then, should never come up nothing but the name for a social order of untrammeled private property rights; of the absolute right of self-ownership, the absolute right to homestead un- owned resources, of employing them for whatever purpose one sees fit so long as this does not affect the physical integrity of others' likewise appropriated resourc- es, and of entering into any contrac

Volume 3, Number 2

November 1989 Dispute The A Priori of Disagreelllent Intimidation by Argument -Once Again Hans-Hermann Hoppe that failed attempts to construct apriori theories exist. But so what? This only re- flects on those particular theories. Moreover, it actually presupposes the ex- istence of apriori reasoning in that the ref- utation of an apriori theory must itself be a proof. For Lomasky, however, nothing but intellectual hyperbole can possibly be responsible for "eschewing the low road of empiricism, soaring instead with Kant and von Mises through the realm of a pri- ori necessities." Besides finding fault with the arro- gance of someone writing a book that presents a praxeologically meaningful and easily understandable thesis concern- ing the central problems of political phi- losophy and economy, and that vigorously defends it to the point of ex- cluding all' other answers as false, Lomasky also has some specific nits to pick. As might be expected from an in- timidated low roader, they are either un- systematic cheap shots, or they display a Arguing is an activity and requires a person's exclusive control over scarce resources (one's brain, vocal chords etc.). As long as there is argumenta- tion, there is a mutual recogni- tion of each other's exclusive control over such resources. complete lack of comprehension of the problem. I am criticized for not paying enough attention to Quine, Nozick, and entire bodies of philosophic thought. Maybe so (though Nozick is actually systematically refuted, if only in a footnote-as Lomasky indignantly notes), but why should that make a difference for my argument? I am criticized for misinterpreting