I want to thank Conza88 for the great contributions.
I have always asked myself how could anyone not become involved in a contradiction if he first says that the Hoppe’s axiom is not valid and then proceeds to say that people don’t need a-priori ethics, or that such don’t exist at all, but rather ethics could be contracted, i.e. come out as a result of some cooperation. Well my question is - do or do not these actors who contract to come up with the “free market ethics” act? If they are acting they are doing so with the presumpion of some preestablished ethics. The action they are commiting while contracting demonstrates that they are already keeping some moral rules.
Others suggest that a-priori ethics are unnecessary, since people will reconsize the benefits of cooperation and simply will not do “wrong things”(how could you say that something is wrong if you think that ethics does not exist?). But wait a minute, when they are talking about cooperation they do not refer to the such as a whole but rather to some category of cooperation. And this category is the one which includes humen interaction which produces an outcome they like. So they do not have any argument against such activities as stealing and killing. They like the cooperation which aims at outcome that they appreciate, and deem the action involved in such cooperation “good”, and whatever other outcomes could be produced that they don’t like are deemed “bad” simply because they don’t like them. (that is why every theft of killer could use the same false argument for a justification of his actions)
As you are probably aware - the axiom that Hoppe formulated, which states that the individual is the one who is in exclusive control over his body, can not not be proven and what is else it does not tell you that someone else should not initiate aggression against you. It merely refutes any arguments that try to prove the opposite - which is a positive - that someone should coerce you. So his axiom just shows that arguments that are for the initiation of aggression are unsound. Not that they are unethical, but rather unsound.
I was surprised to see the reputation of the following thread, which contains at least several non-sequiturs in the OP that completely corrupt what he is trying to articulate: https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/why-capitalism/17612