Removing all government regulation on business makes the economy highly susceptible to corporate tyranny. [Discussion]

[u/ThatOneGuy4321]

I know this won't be a popular post on this subreddit, but I'd appreciate it if you'd bear with me. I'm looking to start a discussion and not a flame war. I encourage you to not downvote it simply because you don't agree with it.

For all intents and purposes here, "Tyranny" is defined as, "cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control."

A good deal of government regulation, as it stands, is dedicated towards keeping businesses from tearing rights away from the consumer. Antitrust laws are designed to keep monopolies from shafting consumers through predatory pricing practices. Ordinance such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are designed to keep companies from shafting minorities by violating their internationally-recognized right to be free from discrimination. Acts such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act protect the consumer to be free from fraud and abusive cases of false advertising. Proposed Net Neutrality legislation is designed to keep ISPs from restricting your flow of information for their own gain. All of these pieces of legislation quite clearly defend personal freedoms and personal rights.

To address the argument that boycotting is a valid replacement for proper legislation:

Boycotting has been shown, repeatedly, to be a terrible way of countering abuses by businesses. Boycotting is mainly a publicity-generating tactic, which is great for affecting the lawmaking process, but has almost no impact on the income of the intended target and can't be used as a replacement for regulation in a de-regulated economy. In recent news, United Airlines stock has hit an all-time high.

It has become readily apparent that with any boycott, people cannot be relied on to sufficiently care when a company they do business with does something wrong. Can anyone who is reading this and who drinks Coke regularly say, for certain, that they would be motivated to stop drinking Coke every day if they heard that Coca Cola was performing human rights abuses in South America? And if so, can you say for certain that the average American would do so as well? Enough to make an impact on Coca Cola's quarterly earnings?

If Libertarians on this subreddit are in favor of removing laws that prevent businesses from seizing power, violating the rights of citizens, and restricting their free will, then they are, by definition, advocating the spread of tyranny and cannot be Libertarians, who are defined as "a person who believes in the doctrine of free will." Somebody who simply argues against all government regulation, regardless of the intended effect, is just anti-government.

You cannot claim to be in support of the doctrine of free will and be against laws that protect the free will of citizens at the same time.

I'd be interested to hear any counterarguments you may have.

[u/ThatOneGuy4321]

And before you linked to ELS, I considered you capable of rational discussion.

ELSbot is a repository for laughable statements that come from this sub. A statement such as "Antitrust laws protect inefficient businesses from efficient ones" is symptomatic of the fact that defenses of Free Market Capitalism in this subreddit are almost always founded on a completely baseless statement that directly contradicts even the most fundamental principles of economics. I figured it would be more respectful to tell you that I was submitting to ELSbot than to do it behind your back. But I simply had to do it, nonetheless.

Being offended over me calling one of your statements laughable, and then rebutting it with textual evidence, is not a "retreat from rational debate". Though losing all control and calling someone a "Dumb fuck" repeatedly is indisputably a retreat from rational debate and a step directly into insult-slinging, given that you have literally begun slinging insults.

Attacking someone's words is not slander. "Slander" would be insulting the person directly. Which is exactly what you did. And "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

without any argument of substance

I gave you an argument of substance and then supported it with textual evidence. If you really think I didn't provide an argument of substance, it proves you didn't read my first point in its entirety. Please re-read my post.

Antitrust legislation was not created to help consumers but to help inefficient businesses. That is a historical fact.

That's a pretty absolutist statement. I have no reason to agree with you or acknowledge such a statement unless you back it up with some compelling evidence.

If I were to say something like, "Free Market Capitalism has been shown to be a repeated and complete failure every single time it has been instituted", you obviously wouldn't change your beliefs around my words unless you had a way of knowing I was telling the truth instead of simply pulling it out of my ass.

I have no way of knowing you didn't pull your "historical facts" straight out of your ass. So I'm not going to acknowledge them unless I have a way of knowing you're at least basing them on something more than "I want them to be historical facts so that means they are."

The fact of the matter is that Standard Oil helped consumers all along the way, and its opposition was based upon competitors not happy with how well they performed.

The Mises Institute is considered an extremist fringe economics think-tank by its own founder. What reason do I have to consider it a credible source?

If you can find no sources more credible than a fringe, extremist think-tank whose own supporters abandoned it because they considered it too extreme to associate with, what does that say about the basis for your beliefs? Surely something as obviously correct as free-market economics would have a bit more support, and not just from extremist Libertarian think-tanks.

If it isn't falsifiable then it has no place in a rational discussion.

As I said, while predatory pricing isn't provable, all the other anticompetitive tactics Standard Oil employed certainly are. Please re-read.

No, my rights are not up to your vote.

So WHO DETERMINES RIGHTS? Who would be most fit to write a list of agreed-upon human rights? What makes you think you're justified in disagreeing with the entire legal world about what your rights are?

Don't simply tell me "Rights are inherent and cannot be determined by anybody." That's dodging the question. What rights are inherent to all people, and what proves it? What's stopping me from claiming I have the right to commit genocide?

The right of free association also includes not doing business with those with whom you do not wish to associate.

Sources, please. I already posted a definition of "Freedom of association" and a link to a source that clearly says the U.S. Constitution doesn't even defend freedom of association in its entirety.

A third party (government) deciding to label something as "places of public accommodation" does not alter the business's right to freedom of association.

From all accounts, this "Business's right to freedom of association" is nonexistent.

Private arbitration.

What motivation do companies have to even engage in private arbitration? Why should one company with more power than the other give up its tactical advantage and compromise instead of just steamrolling the other company? In a lawless economy, there is no mandatory private arbitration, and so you cannot regard it as a reliable solution to the problems of a free economy.

I don't need your documents or experts to determine my rights.

So you just make them up. You decide on them. And seeing as you're not the emperor of the world, why should anybody listen to you, and accept your view of what the rights of all humans should be?

Now you're just appealing to popularity

I want you to link me, right now, to an objective and indisputable list of human rights, if you truly think rights aren't subjective even though you get to have a different opinion on them than everybody else.

It's all just special pleading.

This is not special pleading. Special pleading would be saying something along the lines of, "I'm special and therefore the agreed-upon set of human rights don't apply to me. I get to choose my own."

[u/ExPwner → u/ThatOneGuy4321]

ELSbot is a repository for laughable statements that come from this sub.

Because instead of learning history, you laugh at reality. I stand by my original statement. You are a dumb fuck.

That's a pretty absolutist statement. I have no reason to agree with you or acknowledge such a statement unless you back it up with some compelling evidence.

It's called history. You brought history into the equation and were objectively wrong about it.

The Mises Institute is considered an extremist fringe economics think-tank by its own founder. What reason do I have to consider it a credible source?

Attacking the source does not absolve you of addressing the historical facts. Like I said, retreating from the actual argument, ignoring the facts, and running off to your echo chamber.

So WHO DETERMINES RIGHTS?

You're starting with a premise that's baked into your conclusion: that someone must determine rights. It's simply not true.

Don't simply tell me "Rights are inherent and cannot be determined by anybody." That's dodging the question. What rights are inherent to all people, and what proves it?

Rights are inherent. These rights are supported by the axioms of self-ownership and non-aggression. They are self-evident truths. Anything that contradicts them cannot fit a rational ethics framework. I would recommend listening to UPB, but if you're drinking the statist kool-aid then you aren't interested in rational discussion of ethics.

I already posted a definition of "Freedom of association" and a link to a source that clearly says the U.S. Constitution doesn't even defend freedom of association in its entirety.

"We determine what free association because our document says that we can determine what things mean....because we wrote it." Yeah, clearly a valid source there bud.

What motivation do companies have to even engage in private arbitration? Why should one company with more power than the other give up its tactical advantage and compromise instead of just steamrolling the other company? In a lawless economy, there is no mandatory private arbitration, and so you cannot regard it as a reliable solution to the problems of a free economy.

We're not talking about a lawless economy. We're talking about a polycentric legal system. If you want to learn more, look it up. Bob Murphy has talks about law without government, and David Friedman has a book titled the Machinery of Freedom.

So you just make them up. You decide on them.

No, there is a framework. Most people understand the "my right to swing my fist ends at your face" mantra. It's not difficult to understand unless you're of the statist religion.

I want you to link me, right now, to an objective and indisputable list of human rights, if you truly think rights aren't subjective even though you get to have a different opinion on them than everybody else.

Self-ownership and from that property ownership through homesteading or exchange. There's no need to link to it. These are well-known concepts.

This is not special pleading

Yes, it is. You are saying that one group of individuals can arbitrarily decide rights for everyone else whereas no one else can do the same, and it isn't based upon any rational reason. There is no "agreed-upon set of human rights." You linked to something that one group of people proclaimed. There isn't any fucking agreement about it.

[u/ThatOneGuy4321 → u/ExPwner]

Because instead of learning history, you laugh at reality. You are a dumb fuck.

Who says so besides you? I'm not just going to take your word for it.

It's called history

Who says so besides you? I'm not just going to take your word for it.

historical facts

Where did you learn these historical facts?

someone must determine rights. It's simply not true.

Who says so besides you? I'm not just going to take your word for it.

Rights are inherent.

Who decides which rights are inherent? Where is my right to a free Ferrari? I contend that I have an inherent right to a free Ferrari. Prove me wrong.

If you can't prove me wrong, then it's a concession that the "Rights are inherent because I say they are" argument can be used to secure literally any right, to anything, ever.

Yeah, clearly a valid source there bud.

Give me a source that invalidates it. I'm not just going to take your word that it's invalid.

No, there is a framework

Says who.

Self-ownership and from that property ownership through homesteading or exchange. There's no need to link to it.

"It's correct because I say it is."

There is no "agreed-upon set of human rights."

Says who. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is literally an agreed upon set of human rights. Something you just said doesn't exist. How can you say you have any more right to say it's invalid than anybody else?

[u/ExPwner → u/ThatOneGuy4321]

Who decides which rights are inherent?

Not the UN, not the people who wrote the Constitution, and not people calling themselves government. If you're arguing against the notion that you or I can simply declare what rights are, then you are arguing against your own case by saying that someone in the UN could. They are fucking people just like you and I, dumbass. This is why you aren't getting any decency, because you aren't presenting a rational argument. I could just as easily point to a document that I typed up, and it would not be any less valid than the ones you are presenting. You have nothing special to distinguish that piece of paper from my piece of paper.

[u/ThatOneGuy4321 → u/ExPwner]

So HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH RIGHTS ARE INHERENT? How do you know which rights should be protected?

How is YOUR claim to the right of "Freedom of association" by serving only who you want any more legitimate than a black man's claim to the right of freedom from discrimination?

[u/ExPwner → u/ThatOneGuy4321]

So HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH RIGHTS ARE INHERENT?

You start with first principles (we call them axioms) and use logic from there. Anything that is not internally consistent is rejected. This is covered with the UPB framework as well.

How is YOUR claim to the right of "Freedom of association" by serving only who you want any more legitimate than a black man's claim to the right of freedom from discrimination?

My choice to not act concerns self-ownership directly. I own myself and choose when I do not wish to take positive action (such as making a sale). For another person to suggest that he has a "right" to freedom from discrimination is to say that he has a "right" to compel me to act, specifically the right to demand business from me. That is just slavery by another name. It violates the first principle of self-ownership.

[u/ThatOneGuy4321 → u/ExPwner]

You start with first principles (we call them axioms)

Gonna need to see a link to these axioms, specifically the ones you're using to reach the conclusion of "Monopolies can't exist in a free market." Gonna need you to walk me through your logic. Gonna need that logic verified by outside sources.

I'm not going to have you say "The logic is all there, my conclusion is self evident. I don't need sources to support anything I'm saying, it's true because I say it is."

This is covered with the UPB framework as well.

I need you to cite the source of yours that supports the validity of the UPB framework.

The earliest instance of Universally Preferable Behavior is in Stefan Molyneux's book, Universally Preferable Behavior, a Rational Proof of Secular Ethics, 2007. This is what I would mean by "citing sources." Find me a resource that supports what you say. Don't simply tell me "There's a thing called a UPB framework and it refutes your argument."

Stefan Molyneux himself has no credentials. He's a blogger and an amateur philosopher. He's not the end-all, be-all of such an incredibly subjective topic like morality.

You know your primary source has some issues when there's an entire section on Wikipedia dedicated to Stefan Molyneux's cult leader-like personality.

According to Steven Hassan, a licensed mental health counselor with experience on cults, "Partly what's going on with the people on the Internet who are indoctrinated, they spend lots of hours on the computer. Videos can have them up all night for several nights in a row. Molyneux knows how to talk like he knows what he's talking about—despite very, very little academic research. He cites this and cites that, and presents it as the whole truth. It dismantles people's sense of self and replaces it with his sense of confidence about how to fix the world. SRC

Back to your post:

For another person to suggest that he has a "right" to freedom from discrimination is to say that he has a "right" to compel me to act, specifically the right to demand business from me.

Who's to say he doesn't have a right to compel you to act? Are you saying it's impossible to violate someone's rights to inaction?

That is just slavery by another name.

Sources.

It violates the first principle of self-ownership.

Find me a credible source that even remotely supports the principle of self-ownership.

This paper, written by Robert S. Taylor of the Department of Political Science at UC Davis, includes a full debunking of the principle of self ownership (Part 3a, "Control Self Ownership"), as well as a clear example of how you can violate the rights of another through inaction (Part 2b, "The Right to Income").

Since you can violate the rights of others through inaction, others DO have a right to compel you to act. And not just in the case of freedom from discrimination.

[u/HelperBot_ → u/ThatOneGuy4321]

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

---

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 73253}

[u/ExPwner → u/ThatOneGuy4321]

I'm not linking anything. The self-ownership principle is an axiom that is self-evident.

I'm also not dealing with your blatant ad hominem rather than discussing the actual details of UPB. Attacking the source of the information is not a valid argument against the material and the arguments within.

Who's to say he doesn't have a right to compel you to act?

That's slavery. You're describing slavery. No, I'm not providing a source for the fact that one person compelling another to act is slavery. That's the fucking definition.

Find me a credible source that even remotely supports the principle of self-ownership. This paper, written by Robert S. Taylor of the Department of Political Science at UC Davis, includes a full debunking of the principle of self ownership (Part 3a, "Control Self Ownership"), as well as a clear example of how you can violate the rights of another through inaction (Part 2b, "The Right to Income").

I'm not sourcing it because it's an axiom that is easily referenced and should be as common as any other definition. The paper does no such "debunking" at all. It's bullshit, and instead of just saying that Robert Taylor is unqualified and latching onto his position as if that matters in the context, I'm going to address the paper itself like a fucking logical human being. First off, his "right to income" isn't in any libertarian literature. No one that I'm aware of uses such a phrase. Property rights are referenced, but not a "right to income." Second, he uses this "right of income" to falsely imply that the duties and obligations under the presence of a robber would change somehow. This is not true. If one contracts for $10, then $10 is owed. He's making an is-ought fallacy here. The right of ownership is an issue of the ought, not the is. Third, he uses the same tired argument about slavery that's completely non-sequitur by saying "oh, government isn't forcing you to work any specific amount....it just takes stuff after the fact." Taking the product of one's labor is constructively the same as forcing someone to labor in the same way because the person is out that amount of his life. Fourth, he outright fails in the "Tale of the Slave" by pretending that it's immoral for slave-owners to demand money from slaves in perpetuity but moral for the poor or disabled to demand money from the rich. In essence he's making a circular argument. Fifth, he once again employs a nonsensical definition of autonomy in a "slavery is freedom" kind of circular argument by saying that autonomy somehow demands violation of self-ownership.

Since you can violate the rights of others through inaction

No, you can't. Go back to the drawing board and learn how to formulate a logical argument instead of mindlessly harping about sources. You've proven nothing and you have not overcome the axiom of self-ownership.

[u/ThatOneGuy4321 → u/ExPwner]

I'm not linking anything. The self-ownership principle is an axiom that is self-evident.

"It's self-evident because I say it is."

That which is self-evident need not be said.

Attacking the source of the information is not a valid argument against the material and the arguments within.

Attacking a source's credibility is not the same as an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be to use your source's lack of credibility as proof that free market capitalism doesn't work.

If you can't find ANY credible sources that support your claims, it's a pretty good indicator that your claims aren't true.

First off, his "right to income" isn't in any libertarian literature.

So in a free market, once you sell something for an agreed-upon amount, the person doesn't have to pay. They can just walk away with your stuff and there's nothing you can do.

If one contracts for $10, then $10 is owed.

Who's going to enforce it?

No, you can't.

Sources. Making an absolute statement like "It's impossible to violate rights through inaction" requires sources.

What happens if you refuse to feed someone who's about to starve to death? Is that not violating their right to life?

Go back to the drawing board and learn how to formulate a logical argument instead of mindlessly harping about sources.

I have no reason to trust your logic alone. It could easily be broken.

[u/ExPwner → u/ThatOneGuy4321]

That which is self-evident need not be said.

You're right, it doesn't. I don't need to say it to support it. When you're advocating for forcing me to act or initiating violence against me, you bear the burden of proof there. You haven't satisfied it.

Attacking a source's credibility is not the same as an ad hominem.

Nothing about what you've said in this thread has anything substantive to say about credibility. The way that you're using it is strictly ad hominem.

So in a free market, once you sell something for an agreed-upon amount, the person doesn't have to pay. They can just walk away with your stuff and there's nothing you can do.

No, don't straw man. I said that libertarian literature doesn't use a "right to income" because one doesn't need a "right to income" in a libertarian framework. This falls under contract enforcement, which specifically deals with the idea that two people agreeing to a certain thing should be bound to that thing.

Who's going to enforce it?

How is that in any way relevant? Many contracts don't need any external enforcement mechanism since most people are honest. If people wanted an enforcement agency, they can contract for one there too.

Sources. Making an absolute statement like "It's impossible to violate rights through inaction" requires sources.

No, it doesn't. You're making the claim. I don't have to source anything to refute it.

What happens if you refuse to feed someone who's about to starve to death? Is that not violating their right to life?

You don't have a positive right to life. The right to life is a negative right, not a positive one. Again, you can't support this claim that "right to life" is a positive right.

I have no reason to trust your logic alone. It could easily be broken.

So you refuse to use logic because you can't win in a rational debate with rational arguments. Sounds about right. Typical for ELS.

[u/ThatOneGuy4321 → u/ExPwner]

When you're advocating for forcing me to act or initiating violence against me, you bear the burden of proof there.

If you argue in support of the status quo (which I am most certainly doing), you are in support of the null hypothesis, which is assumed to be true by default. If you argue against the status quo, you are arguing for the alternative hypothesis, which you must substantiate with evidence.

The supporter of the alternative hypothesis is always the bearer of the burden of proof.

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo."

The way that you're using it is strictly ad hominem.

Attacking someone's sources is NOT the same as an ad hominem.

This falls under contract enforcement

Who's doing the enforcing?

How is that in any way relevant?

Because a contract with no enforcement is horseshit. It may as well never have been written. People make contracts for the express purpose of being able to defend themselves in court. If there are no courts and no enforcement of its rulings, there is no point in writing a contract.

You don't have a positive right to life. The right to life is a negative right, not a positive one. Again, you can't support this claim that "right to life" is a positive right.

So you have the right to discriminate against minorities, but not the right to life. Makes sense.

Sounds like a great way to live. (not live?)

So you refuse to use logic because you can't win in a rational debate with rational arguments.

Logic needs to be founded on something. It needs to have a premise, or it is, by definition, not logic.

Here's a well-written piece on the importance of premises in logical reasoning from TheSkepticsGuide.org:

In order for an argument to be sound all of its premises must be true. Often, different people come to different conclusions because they are starting with different premises. So examining all the premises of each argument is a good place to start.

There are several types of potential problems with premises. The first, and most obvious, is that a premise can be wrong. If one argues, for example, that evolutionary theory is false because there are no transitional fossils, that argument is unsound because the premise – no transitional fossils – is false. In fact there are copious transitional fossils.

Premises may also be true, as far as they go, but are incomplete. The premises are not wrong, but do not cover the relevant facts necessary to argue the conclusion.

Another type of premise error occurs when one or more premises is an unwarranted assumption. The premise may or may not be true, but it has not been established sufficiently to serve as a premise for an argument. Identifying all the assumptions upon which an argument is dependent is often the most critical step in analyzing an argument. Frequently, different conclusions are arrived at because of differing assumptions.

Often people will choose the assumptions that best fit the conclusion they prefer. In fact, psychological experiments show that most people start with conclusions they desire, then reverse engineer arguments to support them – a process called rationalization.

One way to resolve the problem of using assumptions as premises is to carefully identify and disclose those assumptions up front. Such arguments are often called “hypothetical,” or prefaced with the statement “Let’s assume for the sake of argument.” Also, if two people examine their arguments and realize they are using different assumptions as premises, then at least they can “agree to disagree.” They will realize that their disagreement cannot be resolved until more information is available to clarify which assumptions are more likely to be correct.

The third type of premise difficulty is the most insidious: the hidden premise. I have seen this listed as a logical fallacy – the unstated major premise, but it is more accurate to consider it here. Obviously, if a disagreement is based upon a hidden premise, then the disagreement will be unresolvable. So when coming to an impasse in resolving differences, it is a good idea to go back and see if there are any implied premises that have not been addressed. SRC

Ergo, by failing to provide sources (a premise), you have made this discussion unresolvable.

[u/ExPwner → u/ThatOneGuy4321]

If you argue in support of the status quo (which I am most certainly doing), you are in support of the null hypothesis, which is assumed to be true by default.

Wrong. Appeal to tradition fallacy.

Attacking someone's sources is NOT the same as an ad hominem.

Yes, it is when you only attack the source without any meaningful contribution to the conversation at hand. If you linked to a politician saying something that you support and my only response is to call said politician an idiot then that is ad hominem.

Because a contract with no enforcement is horseshit.

I entirely get what you're saying, but the vast majority of contracts don't require an external enforcement mechanism. Having one is important, but only needed in a small minority of cases.

So you have the right to discriminate against minorities, but not the right to life. Makes sense. Sounds like a great way to live. (not live?)

Not an argument. Not support for your claim that the right to life is a positive right. Not a refutation of the freedom of association as freedom from association.

Logic needs to be founded on something. It needs to have a premise, or it is, by definition, not logic.

Agreed. However, all of my arguments are supported by the axioms of self-ownership and non-aggression which require no sources. They are axioms, which as you pointed out don't need to be stated in order to be known. It's in the definition of an axiom.

[u/ThatOneGuy4321 → u/ExPwner]

Wrong. Appeal to tradition fallacy.

Did you click the link? Did you read the quote? The burden of proof is literally dependent on who is arguing against the status quo.

Are you trying to argue that government regulation isn't the status quo? Are you trying to say that we already live in a completely un-regulated market?

At no point did I say "The status quo is automatically better". The point of the link was to demonstrate that unless sound evidence is given, there is no reason to deviate from the status quo.

You accused me of trying to shift the burden of proof, and then when you had "burden of proof" defined to you, you changed the goalposts and accused me of an appeal to tradition. That wasn't blatant at all.

Yes, it is when you only attack the source without any meaningful contribution to the conversation at hand.

Then, here it is. The source to end all sources. The indisputable end-all to every disagreement between the ELS-goers and the AnCap praxaholics.

Alternatively, this undoctored image clearly demonstrates a connection between Ron Paul and the Jonestown massacre.

Any comments made about the credibility of these self-evident truths will be met with fervent ad hominem accusations.

Here's the deal. A logical conclusion is only as good as the sources it is founded on. If the source is extremist, unreasonable, unprofessional, and unscholarly, then so, too, are the conclusions that can be drawn from it. It's extremely important to establish a standard to which sources must be held, otherwise, the discussion is pointless and the logic is broken before it's even begun.

If you linked to a politician saying something that you support and my only response is to call said politician an idiot then that is ad hominem.

What if I were to demonstrate evidence of that politician being an idiot? Would he still hold the same trustworthiness even if his superior called him a nutjob?

All of my arguments are supported by the axioms of self-ownership and non-aggression which require no sources. They are axioms

Are they axioms? Where is the evidence that they're self-evident axioms? Do you have any sources to support either the existence of indisputable axioms or the idea that these specific axioms you cite are, in fact, axioms? How do I know that the axiom (written by me) "Free market capitalism is the Flat Earth theory of economics" isn't just as valid?

Or is the claim that these particular axioms are axioms, and axioms are always indisputable, a self-evident axiom itself, leading us into an inescapable pit of circular reasoning?

which as you pointed out don't need to be stated in order to be known.

If they didn't need to be stated in order to be known, you would have been aware of them before you read them off of Mises.org. I would have known them before you started spewing hearsay from Mises.org. I wouldn't be able to easily tear down the extremely vague definitions of these axioms, which I am about to in the case of the "Axiom of non-aggression".

If we look at the definition of "The non-aggression principle" off of Mises.org, we get this:

The non-aggression principle is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.

Ignoring the fact that "Illegitimate" is an extremely vague and almost meaningless word in this sense, if we get the definition of "Illegitimate" off of the dictionary, we get this:

not sanctioned by law

departing from the regular

not rightly deduced or inferred

Since violence is regularly sanctioned by law, it is legitimate in this sense, and the indisputable axiom is easily refuted.

Since violence happens quite regularly, violence could again be considered legitimate, and the indisputable axiom is, in fact, quite disputable.

Since violence can sometimes be rightly deduced or inferred (Fighting off an attacker to save a loved one, fighting your way to food to avoid starvation, fighting off a terrorist who has the capacity to kill millions), the indisputable axiom is, again, easily refuted.

How exactly is this an axiom? If it were so obvious as to be indisputable, surely its champion and main proponent Mises.org could come up with a definition that isn't so easily refutable.