Here is an interesting blog post that claims to "reconstuct" Hoppe's AE. This is the intro:
I argue herein that Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s "argumentation ethics" are better suited as "communication ethics". I show that all of Hoppe’s insights follow not only from the act of argumentation, but from the act of communication itself which is shown as a necessary implication of action. I establish an inseparable link between exclusive use of objects external to an actor’s body and the status of such objects as private property proper, giving indisputable legitimacy of ownership to possessors of homesteaded goods and goods that are manifested from such goods. I then use the principle of nonaggression, as I show it here, to establish the principle of “communicative estoppel” in order to give Stephan Kinsella’s “dialogical estoppel” proper ground. I conclude that insofar as one communicates with oneself, or with another actor, one presupposes in the former the principles of self-ownership and private property, and in the latter nonaggression and estoppel.
I tend to prefer this appraach over Hoppe's since I have attempted to improve his AE along similar lines in the past. Also, this is not intended to comment on animals rights, though it has implications in that debate.
I read the first few paragraphs. He's an intelligent but confused individual.
It follows only from argumentation, and it completely relies uppon it.
see: http://argumentationethics.wordpress.com/2011/12/25/argumentation-ethics/