I feel like starting over. Very briefly, here is my latest attempt to explain Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, pared down to the most modest possible claims.

  • Denial is a kind of argumentation.
  • Argumentation pre-supposes that participants in argumentation always own their brains.
  • No ethic that denies that people always own their brains can be justified argumentatively.
  • If I own my brain I own my body.
  • If I own my body I can homestead and own the food I use to fuel and replenish my brain and body.
  • If I can own and homestead food, what is there I can’t own?

Here is a link to my other posts about Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. Thanks to Conza for helpful comments on a previous post. All errors are my own, no matter how numerous.