David Osterfeld on natural rights

[Amanojack]

@Hoppe

Arguing is an activity and requires a person’s exclusive control over scarce resources (one’s brain, vocal chords, etc.).

So far so good.

@Hoppe

More specifically, as long as there is argumentation, there is a mutual recognition of each other’s exclusive control over such resources.

Here Hoppe can charitably be interpreted in one of two ways:

1. Recognition = acknowledgment of the fact of “each other’s exclusive control over such resources.”
2. Recognition = acknowledgment of each other’s right of exclusive control over such resources.

@Hoppe

It is this which explains the unique feature of communication: that while one may disagree about what has been said, it is still possible to independently agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement.

Note that this implies Interpretation (1) above, and does not imply Interpretation (2). So far he consistently means (1); no equivocation yet.

@Hoppe

(Lomasky does not seem to dispute this. He claims, however, that it merely proves the fact of mutually exclusive domains of control, not the right of self-ownership. He errs: Whatever - such as the law of contradiction, for instance - must be presupposed insofar as one argues, cannot be meaningfully disputed, because it is the very precondition of meaningful doubt, and hence must be regarded as indisputable, or a priori valid.

This still implies Interpretation (1), and not (2), because at best only the fact of “each other’s exclusive control over such resources” need be presupposed, and only that fact cannot be meaningfully disputed. One could of course meaningfully dispute the right of exclusive control without pressupposing such a right. All that is actually required is presupposition of the fact, not the right. Lomasky may be wrong (or not), but in any case Hoppe must still intend Interpretation (1) here if Hoppe is to be interpreted charitably.

Note that switching to Interpretation (2) without explicit reference to that switch would be a bald equivocation. So far, Hoppe is in the clear.

@Hoppe

In the same vein, the fact of self-ownership is a praxeological precondition of argumentation. Anyone trying to prove or disprove anything must in fact be a self-owner.

If his argument is to coherently follow from what he wrote above, Hoppe must here define “the fact of self-ownership” as “the fact of ‘each other’s exclusive control over such resources’.” And he must define “self-owner” as “one who has ‘exclusive control over such resources’.”

Hoppe still clearly means Interpretation (1) above. Still no equivocation.

@Hoppe

It is a self-contradictory absurdity then to ask for any further-reaching justification for this fact. Required, of necessity, by all meaningful argumentation, self-ownership is an absolutely and ultimately justified fact.)

From above, all Hoppe is saying here is, “each other’s exclusive control over such resources” is an absolutely and ultimately justified fact. But the dear reader will note that this statement - taken at face value - does not imply Hoppe’s argumentation ethics (right to exclusive control), only argumentation facts (fact of exclusive control).

No, for Hoppe’s purposes, the sentence will have to carry the implication that “the right of self-ownership is an absolutely and ultimately justified fact.” Sadly, Hoppe can only achieve this by pulling the old switcheroo, by equivocating between Interpretation (1) and Interpretation (2).