Abstract
The paper confronts the argumentation ethics developed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a libertarian and anarcho-capitalist thinker, with basic assumptions of the ancient democracy (originally called isegoria , that is, “an equal right to speak”), both of which are rooted in the phenomenon of discourse. Based on an analytical comparison the paper argues that possible similarities are superficial and deceptive. Indeed, despite some similarities prima facie , the theories in question have different nature and aims. The ethics of argumentation is a philosophical theory and as such has a different ambition than isegoria , which was a political system, even if it had some sound philosophical justification. The paper distinguishes three critical categories of analysis: argumentation, mutual recognition, and deliberation, none of which is found to possess a close meaning or function in both theories under investigation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
