On No Treason, a reply to Ghertner, who thinks it’s inconsistent with argumentation ethics “to use the state’s own unjust laws to defend one’s own rights”:
“Both Stephan Kinsella and Stefan are confusing libertarianism with Argumentation Ethics.”
I don’t think so. I am quite aware of the diff. The latter is just one proposed way of justifying the rights that underlie or are assumed by the former.
“Of course, no one disputes that it is perfectly libertarian to use the state’s own unjust laws to defend one’s own rights. What is in dispute is whether one can do this in accordance with AE, that is, make an argument in favor of a proposition that one simultaneously rejects on other grounds, without committing a performative contradiction”
See, this is your mistake. What does it mean to do something “in accordance” w/ AE? AE is NOT libertarianism, or even a code of conduct, as you seem to imply here. YOu are the one conflating them. AE does not “prevent” you from engaging in performative contradictions! It does not even say that this is *necessarily immoral*. It only says that a performative contradiction *shows that* the propositions being asserted cannot both be true, since one of them contradicts the others. This happens to be relevant *when one is trying to establish what rights there are*. Because if one asserts A is true, and it is a contradiction, then it cannot be true. Etc. And to the extent we care about what is true–about RIGHTS–then AE is relevant.
But let’s take another example. Suppose A kidnaps my wife. He tells me he will release her but only if I mouth the words, “I do not exist.” Now, if I utter these words, I am engaging in a performative contradiction, true. But so what? All that this means is that my assertion is not, and cannot be, true–it contradicts the fact that i have to exist just to utter it. BUt who gives a flying crap? My goal is NOT TO UTTER SOMETHING TRUE BUT TO GET MY WIFE BACK.
So could you say I am not acting “in accordance with AE” here? Of course not. THat would make no sense. AE is just a justifying technique. Sometimes you use it, sometimes not. It’s not somethign you act in accordance with–that owuld be NORMS, which is what rightgs/libertarianism embodies, a set of rules or norms, that you ought to act in accordance with. AE just shows *why* libertarianism is true.
