I’m sure most of you are familiar with Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, so I trust that I don’t have to go into too much detail.
Hoppe says that all truth claims must be argued for and if you contradict yourself while arguing what you’re saying can’t be true. Putting aside obvious objection, and assuming this to be correct, and assuming hoppe’s right in saying that one’s self ownership is something that can’t be argued against and is true. There seems to be a problem, atlest to any libertarian. Hoppe says:
“To be sure, people do not live on air and love alone. They need a smaller or greater number of other things as well, simply to survive—and of course only he who survives can sustain an argumentation, let alone lead a comfortable life”
Then he jumpes into homesteading, but I think that this is a mistake. It seems that assuming Hoppe to be correct so far, one could say:
"So therefore every person has the right to the basic necessities for life. Just as only if I recognize your right to control your own body can arguing take place, so only if I recognize the right for you to be alive can argumentation take place, and as hoppe says “people do not live on air and love alone” so only if I recognize your right to food and water can argumentation take place, and hoppe also says that rules must be universalizable, that everyone has the right to basic necessities for life."
It seems that we have a rather anti-libertarian ethic on our hands. It seems assuming Hoppe to be correct, everyone would have a right to the basic necessities for life, which is hardly libertarian.
So this is why I reject hoppe's argument, or atlest why I think libertarians should reject it, or maybe all who choose to acsept argumentation ethics, must reject libertarianism.
Am I wrong?
It's impossible to provide necessities without infringing on self-ownership, which is why argumentation ethics does not conclude food etcetera has to be provided.
How would stealing your muffin in order for me to live violate self ownership? This only works if you believe Lockein homesteading, but that would beg the question, what I’m saying is argumentation ethics does not prove a lockeian homesteding theory, but that each person has the right to the basic necessities for life.
Consultant:It's impossible to provide necessities without infringing on self-ownership, which is why argumentation ethics does not conclude food etcetera has to be provided.
Leaving out the obvious contractual element of this scenario; If a tenant farmer plants a seed (his property) in a landowner's field with or without the permission of the landowner, is the resulting plant with nutrients possessed from the non-owned soil, still arguably the tenant farmer's property?