>>9265
> Take "argumentation ethics".
https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/debunking-the-argument-for-self-ownership/
Low-energy attempt at a refutation.
"I have written a few entries on the nonsensical concept that we call self-ownership"
Oh, boy. Here we go.
"but I have not yet discussed the argument put forward in its defense. I say “argument” in the singular because there is really only one"
No, there are at least two (perhaps more). Just because both use the concept of "property" in relation to the human body, it doesn't mean they are the same argument. The author's sloppy reasoning is far too obvious.
I agree Hoppe's argument is probably flawed, but no ancap cares because we justify self ownership from a moral objection to slavery. We don't need rhetorical tricks.
The Rothbard quote is irrefutably correct and the author makes no attempt at a rebuttal.
"Rothbard likewise cannot envision any alternative to the view that we’re a piece of property,"
What we call "property" is the right to physically control a scarce resource (typically a physical object or being) to the exclusion of every other person. The human body can always be treated as property in this particular context of ethical reasoning. That doesn't excludes other possible treatments or demean the human body in any way. Just because the author doesn't like this methodology, it doesn't make it unsound.
> Human beings are not a kind of thing that can be owned
Yes they are. Ownership is the right to control a scarce resource. The author is claiming that humans do not belong to the category of beings potentially subject to physical control, which is patently false.
Not worth discussing the rest. Utter crap. The only valid rebuttal comes from Robert Murphy. You could have linked his essay instead of that piece of garbage.
https://mises.org/library/hans-hermann-hoppes-argumentation-ethic-critique
Murphy's conclusion:
"Let us emphasize that we realize Hoppe’s observations are con-
sistent with the rest of libertarian thought. For example, Hoppe advo-
cates human self-ownership as an initial state of affairs, only to be
denied to individuals in special circumstances, such as when they
have been convicted of a crime. But the whole point of Hoppe’s
approach is not to argue that libertarianism is merely reasonable or
preferable, but that it is logically undeniable; for his argument to
work, he cannot afford to assume any libertarian principles at the
outset. So if Hoppe’s argument doesn’t prove that criminals own
themselves, then it can’t prove that non-criminals do, either, since
there’s nothing in the argument itself concerning criminal behavior.
Hoppe’s argument is an intriguing one, but it ultimately fails.
Although we support Hoppe’s goals, we cannot endorse flawed
arguments aimed at achieving those goals, as the acceptance of such
implies that we do not have better arguments on our side."
You see? Hoppe's argumentation ethics was never regarded by ancaps as anything but a intriguing experiment. No one relies on it.
Yes, Hoppe's argumentation ethics is probably flawed. No, it's not central to anarcho-capitalism in any meaninful sense. Anarcho-capitalist theory comes mainly from Rothbard. Hoppe added a few useful corrections to misguided open-borders leftietarians. "Democracy: the God that failed" is a much better book.
> It's the exact opposite, Hoppe is the contradiction. Hoppe stated that he wants miniature dictature ships in which all gays, non-whites and other people he doesn't like don't have any freedom at all.
Would you say all gays and nonwhites have a right to get into your house? What about ISIS members? What about Fascists and Nazis? They don't, right? Your house, your rules. Same thing Hoppe says, except that your house includes some land.