you didnt answer my question.
does or doesnt lying contradict the norms of argumentation? if it does then how come u dont accept it as immoral, if it doesnt then how is argumentation ethics valid, since AE relies on argumentation being truth-seeking
then on the position given, your claim is contradictory to the norms of argumentation, you can't support AE as hoppe formulated it and simultaneously claim "Accepting a correct position without proof isn't a bad thing."
uh no, it is very much a bad thing that people accept the NAP as true without proof, and furthermore I can't think of a branch of libertarianism (rothbardianism, objectivism, hoppeanism) that doesnt agree with me.
We are destroying you, and we will destroy you, because we are more productive than than you, we are more consistent than you, and we are smarter than you.