It applies the same axiomatic deductive used in Austrian economics to ethics. It procedes from the self-evident truth of the apriori of argumentation and derives all other ethical principles from it. It’s totally solid.
How is it that you have obtained control? Homesteading. Who is doing the thinking for the arguing? You are. You’re an integrated whole of mind and body. Because wherever you go, there you are.
perhaps talking shows that you have control,whereas arguing is talking and presupposing that the person you are talking to has rights.hoppe does not call his theory ‘talking ethics’, or ‘manipulation of other people ethics’, but discource/argumentation ethics.
Right, but all that shows is that I have control over my body, it doesn’t show that I have ownership of it. The former is an “is” statement, the latter is an ought, morever Hoppe does not demonstrate why one ought to act in a certain manner.
Right, but I don’t have any right to do that, at least, I’m not sure AE demonstrates why I have such a right.
Well, Hoppe states that he wishes to remain within purely “is” statements, but it appears to me that doing so seems problematic since he cannot advise an individual to act in a certain manner, which seems problematic for any ethic. Once again, I think Frank van Dun is on better ground with this issue.