<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Hoppe on Treating Aggressors as Mere &#8220;Technical Problems&#8221;</title> <atom:link href="http://libertarianstandard.com/2013/01/08/hoppe-on-treating-aggressors-as-mere-technical-problems/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://libertarianstandard.com/2013/01/08/hoppe-on-treating-aggressors-as-mere-technical-problems/</link> <description>Property - Prosperity - Peace</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 06:54:19 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator> <item><title>By: Foxwarrior</title><link>http://libertarianstandard.com/2013/01/08/hoppe-on-treating-aggressors-as-mere-technical-problems/#comment-2904</link> <dc:creator>Foxwarrior</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 06:00:43 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertarianstandard.com/?p=12220#comment-2904</guid> <description><![CDATA[It looks to me like Hoppe&#039;s argument and most of the statements in the following quotes are completely different ethical philosophies.To summarize Hoppe&#039;s ethics as I see them: &quot;An entity with which you cannot discuss ethics has no moral standing, and you can discuss ethics with anyone with whom you can communicate.&quot; This justifies abuse of rocks, trees, small animals, and people in alternate unreachable dimensions, but seems to clearly indicate that you should deal with people in a moral fashion, even if they do things you don&#039;t like.Half of the further quotes seem to be more accurately summarized as &quot;people who disrespect others&#039; rights have no rights&quot; or &quot;it&#039;s okay to stoop down to your opponent&#039;s level&quot; which seems to be a different position entirely.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It looks to me like Hoppe&#8217;s argument and most of the statements in the following quotes are completely different ethical philosophies.</p><p>To summarize Hoppe&#8217;s ethics as I see them: &#8220;An entity with which you cannot discuss ethics has no moral standing, and you can discuss ethics with anyone with whom you can communicate.&#8221; This justifies abuse of rocks, trees, small animals, and people in alternate unreachable dimensions, but seems to clearly indicate that you should deal with people in a moral fashion, even if they do things you don&#8217;t like.</p><p>Half of the further quotes seem to be more accurately summarized as &#8220;people who disrespect others&#8217; rights have no rights&#8221; or &#8220;it&#8217;s okay to stoop down to your opponent&#8217;s level&#8221; which seems to be a different position entirely.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>