Porównanie anarchistycznej etyki argumentacji Hoppego z demokratyczną isegorią grecką

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.