The discussion has become basically irrelevant to me now, being that I am rejecting the notion of self-ownership. I had some discussion with some people who like rationality about a couple of points. First is about selfownership validate organ donation but not slavery. Being that I have a starting preference to liberty and not to property, I’ve used slavery as something of a lackmus test of ethical ideas, being that what Hoppe call “self-ownership” is so obvious, and it’s self-refuting to try and justify people owning other people being it is an apriori of argumentation to accept the opposite, and something can be justified only by argumentation. Self-ownership is obvious when pointed to the question of whether someone has the right to take your organs without your permisson with the answer “Of course not, you own yourself”. But if I can transfer the title (sell, give as a gift) to pieces of my body (implied to be the self) like blood, semen, eggs, organs, it is consistent with that that I can transfer the title to my entire body to someone and that contract to be eforceable. That kind of theory that justifies slavery hardly deserves a name connected to liberty.
The point is in a second consideration about why is the apriori norm of argumentation of “respecting other people’s exclusive use of their body” taken to imply property; which we discussed. In the light of some thoughts about homesteading principle being an unjustified addition to the labor theory of property (which I mentioned in the beggining of this post) recognising self-ownership of other people does not follow from the APoA of respecting their exclusive use of their bodies, recognising their “self-possession”. This poses a question of whether if any property can be justified to exist, on which I have to ponder some more, and talk about with my friends..