pull down to refresh
What helped me understand Argumentation Ethics and be comfortable with it was thinking of it as a consequentialist philosophy.
It is only for people who already value peaceful dispute resolution, which must be done through argumentation. From there we build up a set of rules that are implied by that preference for peaceful dispute resolution.
As Hoppe goes on to famously say, anyone who doesn't share that goal is a "technical problem" and must be treated as something like a natural hazard. Why I loved bitcoin immediately(-ish) is that it's a technical solution to some of the those technical problems.
And it has the property that it doesn't make claims about the world. At least, I buy Voskuil's version that the only claim the user of bitcoin makes about the world is that it may be possible to resist the state.
I'm hopeful that later parts of Praxeology of Privacy will deal more with the messy technicals of building a society based on peer-to-peer, cryptographic tools.
I hope so too, in part because I already sense some tension with claims made in this part and Stephan Kinsella's arguments against the legitimacy of IP.
That makes me suspicious of the rigor of the conclusions.
Yes! You worry that if the mind that is exploring where each step allows us to go is different, you get a completely different way of seeing the world. And also there is the problem that arises if you allow that your language may not be capable of expressing all things. When identifying a basis on which to build all further argumentation, you need to be pretty certain that your basis isn't going to corner you in some weird freakish place.