Argumentation ethics: the ultimate justification of capitalism over socialism?

[20000miles]

As every person here should know by now, the economic superiority of the capitalist system vis-a-vis the socialist one is pretty clear. The transfer of property from owners and producers to non-owners and non-producers [i.e. socialism] reduces welfare all around, and society is justly poorer than it otherwise would have been as a result. Ceteris paribus, the greater the degree of socialism, the slower the development of a country.

But often defenders of socialism will claim that it is however a morally superior system [often including appeals to democracy, fairness and egalitarianism].

Modern philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe has formulated argumentation ethics to morally justify a private property society. From Wikipedia:

[COLOR=#0066cc]Hans-Hermann Hoppe[/COLOR]'s "argumentation ethics" is a defense of [COLOR=#0066cc]libertarian[/COLOR] rights. Hoppe...asserts that argumentation, or discourse, is by its nature a conflict-free way of interacting and requires individual control of resources; thus, he argues, certain norms are presupposed as true by anyone engaging in genuine discourse. These norms include the libertarian principle of non-aggression, which itself implies libertarian rights. Therefore, no one can argumentatively deny libertarian rights without self-contradiction.

Or from The Ethics and Economics of Private Property:

[FONT=Times New Roman]

[FONT=Verdana]Now, propositional exchanges are not made up of free-floating propositions, but [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]rather constitute a specific human activity. Argumentation between Crusoe and Friday [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]requires that both have, and mutually recognize each other as having, exclusive control [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]over their respective bodies (their brain, vocal chords, etc.) as well as the standing room [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]occupied by their bodies. No one could propose anything and expect the other party to [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]convince himself of the validity of this proposition or deny it and propose something else [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]unless his and his opponent’s right to exclusive control over their respective bodies and [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]standing rooms were presupposed. In fact, it is precisely this mutual recognition of the[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]proponent’s as well as the opponent’s property in his own body and standing room which [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana]constitutes the characteristicum specificum of all propositional disputes: that while one [/FONT]may not agree regarding the validity of a specific proposition, one can agree nonetheless on the fact that one disagrees. Moreover, this right to property in one’s own body and its
standing room must be considered apriori [FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana](or indisputably) justified by proponent and [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]opponent alike. Anyone who claimed any proposition as valid vis-à-vis an opponent [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]would already presuppose his and his opponent’s exclusive control over their respective [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]body and standing room simply in order to say “I claim such and such to be true, and I [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]challenge you to prove me wrong.” [p.5][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana]Now I'm no philosopher. Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana]A collection of arguentation ethics texts: Hoppe: Selected Topics[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Verdana]A couple of criticisms:[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Polycentric Order: The Problem With Argumentation Ethics[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]

[/FONT]

[Nipper]

Not really sure what the question is. I think it has been proven that no economic system based on ideology imposed by legal protection of the means of production in the hands of a small number of individuals has ever worked. Except for the benefit of a small number of said individuals. As free markets tend towards Monopoly the the natural consequence is monopoly which kills the economic activity and and creates a powerful elite. Communism starts from a point of political elite creating monopolies which in turn leads to the death of economic activity. This was the question faced by Keynes in the aftermath of the great depression and the obvious failure of communist Russia. Therefore a democratic government that protects free markets from the drift towards monopoly and control by small group is what most countries operate by today. It is the quality of the Democratic process and the ability to keep free markets open that keeps Economic activity vibrant. the current recession is due to a failure of governments to stop the monopolies being created in the financial system. That is why when one Bank fell it brought the rest with it. or something to that effect

[Panopticon]

The original post is not based on factual evidence - socialist countries like China have in fact developed quickly. If you claim China's not socialist, then what is? If you claim mixed economies are socialist, how do you explain Scandinavia? As regards the philosophy, there is no requirement to assume non-aggression before engaging in discourse. See: threats.

The response ignores that industrial organisation has tended away from monopoly and towards free markets in capitalist countries in recent years. Economic activity has been stronger in this decade than in the last, even after the financial crisis. There were no financial monopolies, that shows little understanding of the causes of the crisis.

[Christel]

Thank you for the interesting OP and the links. It will take me some time to read all.

Just a first thought: Why is "argumentation" that seems relevant, and not just "communication", of which argumentation" is just one facette?

[Nipper]

The original post is not based on factual evidence - socialist countries like China have in fact developed quickly. If you claim China's not socialist, then what is? If you claim mixed economies are socialist, how do you explain Scandinavia? As regards the philosophy, there is no requirement to assume non-aggression before engaging in discourse. See: threats.

The response ignores that industrial organisation has tended away from monopoly and towards free markets in capitalist countries in recent years. Economic activity has been stronger in this decade than in the last, even after the financial crisis. There were no financial monopolies, that shows little understanding of the causes of the crisis.

just trying to get the ball rolling

[20000miles]

Not really sure what the question is. I think it has been proven that no economic system based on ideology imposed by legal protection of the means of production in the hands of a small number of individuals has ever worked. Except for the benefit of a small number of said individuals. As free markets tend towards Monopoly the the natural consequence is monopoly which kills the economic activity and and creates a powerful elite...

I don't think free markets tend toward monopoly. The reason why monopoly is such a bad word today is because of it's previous, more accurate definition: a special grant of exclusive sale by a government.

The question is to do with the ethical validation of private property and volutary exchange [capitalism].

The original post is not based on factual evidence - socialist countries like China have in fact developed quickly. If you claim China's not socialist, then what is? If you claim mixed economies are socialist, how do you explain Scandinavia? As regards the philosophy, there is no requirement to assume non-aggression before engaging in discourse. See: threats.

The response ignores that industrial organisation has tended away from monopoly and towards free markets in capitalist countries in recent years. Economic activity has been stronger in this decade than in the last, even after the financial crisis. There were no financial monopolies, that shows little understanding of the causes of the crisis.

The OP is based on logical deducation. You don't need to implement socialism to see that it will slow down progress. The key words I used are extremely important: "society is justly poorer than it otherwise would have been as a result" and "Ceteris paribus"

Note that in the closest empirical test in economics, East vs. West Germany, the more socialist one languished in such poverty that a wall had to be constructed to keep productive individuals from leaving.

[20000miles]

Oh yeah, and could you elaborate on threats, Panopticon.

[cactusflower]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As every person here should know by now, the economic superiority of the capitalist system vis-a-vis the socialist one is pretty clear.

The entire yoke is imploding as we sit here. Last time it did this it took a world war to burn off the surplus productive capacity.

Your basic premise is flawed. Capitalism has to be replaced. The question is how best to do it.

[yehbut_nobut]

The entire yoke is imploding as we sit here. Last time it did this it took a world war to burn off the surplus productive capacity.

Your basic premise is flawed. Capitalism has to be replaced. The question is how best to do it.

Speaking of, have you heard of "The New Emergency"?

Conference is on next month, opened by no less a person than Eamon Ryan TD.

Feasta: The New Emergency Conference, June 10-12 2009

This conference, marking Feasta's tenth anniversary, will analyse the systems and the mindsets that have steered the world onto its grotesquely unsustainable current path. Discussions will focus on the new systems (financial, energy, food) and ways of thinking that are urgently required to correct the situation and bring about a rapid transition to a more secure future. Many of the ideas explored are Feasta's. Others will be presented by international speakers who broadly share Feasta's analysis of what needs to be done to build a truly sustainable world.

[mmrebel]

Are we not talking about capitalism vs certain types of socalism here ??