Nice to see you here, Stephan.
Here’s what I don’t follow…
It sounds like he saying that you own yourself, a scarce resource, because no one has a better claim on your body than you…but more specifically, because the alternatives don’t lend themselves to ethics or functionality. The first alternative to “everyone owns himself” is that some own others, while others don’t own them. Slavery. This is invalidated by Hoppe by the notion that it violates universality…it is a rule that is only applied to some, and not equally to others. Unethical.
Here I’m not so convinced, as he offers no concrete reason universality is necessary. He just appeals to “ethics” and “fairness”. But here it looks as though you are saying universality is to be accepted on “reason.” Could you elaborate on this part?
And then, when he doesn’t hold the same rule for animals, his reasoning is that the animals can’t argue with you. So basically, you are the super man so long as the opponant cannot argue. I’m not sure where humans who are mentally or even just physically incapacitated fit into this (such as Stephan Hawking for example…who, without the technology which others have given him, wouldn’t be able to argue. Does that mean he is not subject to the rule of self ownership and rights that cannot be violated? Or is there a “well, he could argue if it weren’t for x” argument made? That sounds quite flimsy to me. And how about the torture of animals?). I found Rothbard’s reasoning to be more convincing, but even he makes no mention of animal torture. It would seem that if animals have no rights, then there is virtually no justification for using force to prevent such an act. I’ve seen it argued that the way to deal with such sadists is simply disassociation. Is this really all there is? Is there no libertarian case for preventing torture of non-human (or non-arguing) creatures?
I do agree the only other alternative to “everyone owns himself” is much more easily debunked…the notion of universal communism…that everyone owns an equal share of everyone else. This would quite obviously bring life to a literal standstill, as no one would be able to rightfully gain permission to do anything, as Hoppe points out.
However, even conceding the universality requirment and acknowledging that people own themselves, I still don’t see a clear reasoning for how this proves the logical conclusion that property rights are valid. It all begins with the concept of scarcity and the need to avoid conflict. Hoppe begins by explaining, that because even in the garden of eden our physical bodies and the physical space they inhabit is scarce, conflict can arise. So the only way to resolve/avoid such conflict is by establishing the right of property, meaning I control what I own and you control what you own, and we cannot do anything to something someone else owns without their permission. But does it need to go any deeper than that? Is the avoidance/resolution of conflict enough of a justification in itself? Who is to say conflict is not justified or righteous or the natural state of things…or does not equate “order”? Is that question just a reduction to a chaotic state and therefore invalidated? Are we just supposed to take for granted that conflict is a negative thing to be avoided? I’m not really sure.
Modus Tollens was specific enough to include this qualifier throughout this thread, as seen here: “If one desires to resolve conflicts peaceably by way of rational argument, then one must recognise some kind of basic self-ownership…” [emphasis added]. My question is, is there any base reasoning that says avoiding or resolving conflicts peacefully is the “right” way things should be done?