It doesn’t necessarily imply that. If someone owns someone else’s body, it just means that they have control over it. That doesn’t mean the same thing as direct control. They could establish control indirectly through coercion, or confinement.
What is crucial to AE is that interpersonal propositional exchange implies that both parties allow their opponent control over their own bodies without any interference, i.e. aggression or coercion.
I was thinking of starting a thread to ask a question on this very topic.
I was reading the 50th Anniversary Tribute to Human Action from Hillsdale College, and read through Leland Yeager’s article on Mises and utilitarianism. I found it to be a fascinating and challenging work for a novice such as me (though I think it has problems). He attacks natural rights theories and defends utilitarian values. This need not concern us here. But he also takes a swipe at Hoppe. I am not familiar with much of Hoppe’s writing, though I have heard of the argumentation ethic before. I don’t think I have to base to tackle his work yet.
He spends about a page summarizing the argument and how Rothbard received it. Then, he devotes a small paragraph to debunking it. I don’t know if the text is available online, so I’ll paraphrase to the best of my recollection.
Basically, Hoppe’s theory ultimately fails because a master and a slave may engage in an argument with each other over the morality of slavery without engaging in contradiction. Then Yeager states that he hopes no further discussion on this topic is necessary. And that is it.
I mean, Yeager raises what seems (to me) like an obvious objection. At least, it seems obvious in light of how I have heard the argumentation ethic stated before. Surely a thinker of Hoppe’s caliber would have anticipated this counter, or have provided a response?
I hope I have not misrepresented Yeager or, worse, built a straw man, but I have relayed his thoughts to the best of my memory. It may be that I overlooked a key point.
The problem for Yeger is this: how did the “master” by right come to “own” the slave?
As far as objections to AE go, that has to be one of the weakest I’ve seen yet.
All of the objections to Hoppe I’ve seen so far have been rather weak, with the exception of Rasmussen’s.
How does it imply that the opponent should have control?
one party cant be said to argue with another if the one does not conceptually acknowledge that the other has control of his own body.
if the other did not have control, there could be no argument, only monologue, talking aside from arguing.
“Hoppe simply asserts, but does not demonstrate, a logical contradiction. Being emphatic and repetitious is simply not enough. A slave-owner and his slave might conceivably engage in an intellectual discussion, even about the moral status of slavery itself, without either necessarily falling into self-contradiction. I hope it is not necessary to spend time on this point.”
That is what I was referring to. I ask because it seems like a cavalier rebuttal. Yeager appears to be a careful researcher, and I notice that other thinkers in the Austrian community have praised his intellect. But I have also noted that he seems to be grinding an ax against many of his opponents.
yeager is simply saying, assume someone doesnt have the right to own himself, how would argumentation ehtics help us to demonstrate that he does own himself. well, it cant, the premise says its impossible. in the context of the scenario posited ‘a slave and his master argue’
how could any theory show that a slave was a self owner if we are told to stick to the facts which stipulate quite clearly that he isnt.
Actually Lomasky’s was not too bad either.