Argumentation ethics or communication ethics does not establish what is morally right or wrong, it only establishes what is the case. For instance, the praxeological theorem of exchange shows only what happens when two actors trade goods; it does not say this is a morally good thing (at least in an objective sense). The praxeological theorem of theft (in the economic sense, not the ethical sense) states only the conditions under which theft can take place. It does not say or prove that theft is a morally bad thing.

Argumentation ethics and my adaption of it, communication ethics, logically shows, in short, that whenever one communicates, even with oneself, one presupposes that one has exclusive control and legitimate ownership of one’s own body and objects outside of the actor’s body; in order to communicate with another person, insofar as one expects the other person to understand what is being said, one must assume that the other person also has these same rights. It follows that any undue aggression against these implicitly recognized rights is an illegitimate invasion of them.

Now, because communication ethics establish praxeological truths, it cannot prove that they are moral truths. It merely establishes that actors have property rights, and that removal of legitimately owned property is aggression. The connotation of what ought or should be done in a case of aggression comes from the logical implications of retribution for aggression, i.e., the estoppel approach.

Kinsella’s dialogical estoppel shows that an aggressor is unable to meaningfully object to being punished for aggression insofar as he actually attempts to defend himself against punishment, for the aggressor has established through action that aggression, at least to the degree that he himself has aggressed, is a legitimate invasion of property rights. In my reconstruction of Kinsella’s argument, the aggressor is implicitly estopped the very moment he commits an invasion of property rights; there is no need for the criminal to object against punishment for his crimes so that estoppel can be recognized.

I have several thoughts on estoppel which are problematic for the praxeologist who is:

1.) Attempting to show that an aggressor, in his action, affirms that retribution is a legitimate action, when it is clearly not, if one follows communication ethics up to this point (homesteading, history of ownership, intrapersonal, and especially interpersonal communication).

And;

2.) Attempting to derive a standard of justice (which does, by the way, imply or connote that there is an objectively correct or incorrect, morally right or wrong standard of retribution or recompense), for which no praxeological standard can be found.

Where the former is concerned: the principle of estoppel assumes that an aggressor implicitly recognizes that aggression—at least to the same degree that he himself has violated the property of another—is legitimate. But insofar as the principle of mutual recognition of property rights holds true (and it does) through interpersonal communication, a person’s violation of another’s property rights cannot imply that the aggression is legitimate, not even subjectively, i.e., for the aggressor himself. For it is the case—indeed, it is objectively the case—that the aggressor has acted in an illegitimate way toward the victim’s property. The aggressor’s actions therefore cannot be said to be legitimate in any sense at all. This cuts the head off the estoppel approach, and thus renders the rest of it void of any use.

However, even if one assumes that estoppel is valid, the idea crumbles into shambles and smithereens if one attempts to apply it in reality. The estoppel approach says, in effect, that the victim is entitled to equal recompense from the criminal. But what does equal recompense mean? If a person steals a ring, for instance, what qualifies as proper recompense? A new ring? The same ring? The monetary value of the ring? Or perhaps a totally different article of equal value? And what of the time and efforts used to recover it? The victim is entitled to—what? But in a way all of these questions are beside the point, for the praxeologist knows that value is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, the value of any good is completely subjective, and unique to every actor. This is a basic economic truth. Therefore, there is no standard of measurement, and no objective or praxeological way to determine what “equal recompense” actually means. The praxeologist is at an utter loss here. Thus, even if the estoppel approach follows from the principles of private property and non-aggression, it is an inoperable concept, and quite nearly meaningless. (In fact, the only situation in which it might be applicable, because the situation is so absolute, would be if the aggressor murdered someone. In this case, using this standard, it is quite obvious that the murderer deserves death. But even still, suppose he murders two people—one can’t very well kill a man twice.)

So, considering these things, what should one think of the estoppel approach to aggression? It is an illogical concept from the start if it is said to stem from the principles of private property and non-aggression, and from the praxeological point of view its application leads to naught.

Although I did write in affirmation of it in my article on communication ethics, I now think it’s an empty concept. While it has good merit for what it is (and good on Kinsella for the attempt to tie it into argumentation ethics), it makes no more sense than a round square, and can no more be applied to reality than Plato’s theory of forms.

Tags: Argumentation Ethics, Communication Ethics, Estoppel, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Stephan Kinsella