Life requires the use of scarce and rivalrous resources. Time, one’s physical body, and all the resources required to live – including food, water, and shelter – are all in limited quantity; and because they are scarce and required to maintain one’s life, they are also rivalrous. One person cannot use the same resource at the same time as another person. It follows then that disputes over these scarce and rivalrous resources will inevitably occur, and that an objective means of dispute resolution thru argumentation is preferable to physical violence. In The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, Hans Hermann Hoppe writes:
“To be sure, people do not live on air and love alone.
They need a smaller or greater number of other goods
as well simply to survive—and only he who survives can
sustain argumentation, let alone lead a comfortable life.
With respect to all of these other goods norms are needed
too, as it could come to conflicting evaluations regarding
their use. In fact, any other norm now must be logically
compatible with the nonaggression principle in order to
be justified and, mutatis mutandis, every norm that could
be shown to be incompatible with this principle would
have to be considered invalid.” [1]
The division of labor increases the available resources for all the individuals that participate in it. Since time is scarce and the specialization of certain tasks by some individuals allows others to specialize in other necessary tasks, thereby increasing the resources available, the division of labor allows all that contribute to reap the benefits of other people’s increased production. So we all benefit from a division of labor by an increased supply of the resources needed to sustain life; and since the best way to avoid physical confrontations over the availability of those goods is to engage in argumentation, then it is best to have a firm grasp on objective truth or valid claims in order to best obtain and defend the scarce and rivalrous resources needed to sustain one’s life.
Hoppe explains further:
“The argument shows us that any truth claim,
the claim connected with any proposition that it
is true, objective or valid (all terms used synonymously
here), is and must be raised and settled in the course
of an argumentation. Since it cannot be disputed that
this is so (one cannot communicate and argue that one
cannot communicate and argue), and since it must be
assumed that everyone knows what it means to claim
something to be true (one cannot deny this statement
without claiming its negation to be true), this very fact
has been aptly called ‘the a priori of communication
and argumentation.’ Arguing never consists of just
free-floating propositions claiming to be true. Rather,
argumentation is always an activity, too. However given
that truth claims are raised and settled in argumentation
and that argumentation, aside from whatever it is that
is said in its course, is a practical affair, it follows that
intersubjectively meaningful norms must exist—precisely
those which make some action an argumentation—which
have a special cognitive status in that they are the practical
preconditions of objectivity and truth.” [2]
This day and age, there are groups of people advocating violently silencing others because they cannot find the logical objective truth or reason necessary to convince others that their position is a valid one.
Initiating violence is clear evidence that one’s position is either illogical or not a valid reasonable claim, for if the person had a valid true argument, they would surely present that argument rather than risk the possible loss of one’s own scarce resource (one’s body, and time). To initiate violence is to risk loss of use of valuable resources, as well as access to the benefits of division of labor: for who would want to trust and trade with someone that has shown a proclivity for violence? The regressive people that lack the arguments to back their positions, and who have decided to resort to violently display their lack of reason, almost always try and hide their identity behind masks and bandanas. Rather than spend their time investigating the reason their positions are illogical or searching for a valid and true argument, these people decide to attempt to use violence and the threat of violence to silence those that espouse ideas that conflict with their narrative.
Last month in this publication, I wrote about some of the brave individuals that put their physical health on the line to protect the people that have logic, reason and truth behind their arguments, and considering the events on the GOP baseball field, they are as important as ever to civilization.
Civilization is defined as the process by which a society reaches an advanced stage of social development and organization. So civilization is recognizing and advocating argumentation ethics, as Hoppe explains:
“In order to recognize them, it is only necessary
to call to mind three interrelated facts. First, that
argumentation is not only a cognitive but also a
practical affair. Second, that argumentation, as a
form of action, implies the use of the scarce
resource of one’s body. And third, that
argumentation is a conflict-free way of interacting
—not in the sense that there is always agreement
on the things said, but in the sense that as long as
argumentation is in progress, it is always possible
to agree at least on the fact that there is
disagreement about the validity of what has
been said. This is only to say that a mutual
recognition of each person’s exclusive control
over his own body must be assumed to exist as
long as there is argumentation (note again that
it is impossible to deny this and claim this denial
to be true without implicitly having to admit its
truth).” [3]
Civilization is defended and advocated through argumentation, and given the increasing willingness of people today to ignore civilized discourse and attempt to regress to physical intimidation in order to obtain scarce and rivalrous resources, it is more important than ever to spend time developing logically valid reasons in support of one’s actions, as well as supporting those people that present those arguments.
[1] Hans Hermann Hoppe, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, p. 319; [2] Ibid. p. 314-315; [3] Ibid. p. 317