Help with a Hoppe Quote

[liege]

Can anyone hep me figure out what this means:

Perhaps the most profound utilization of this insight [the skim-milk fallacy] was offered by Hoppe in his “argument from argument.” Hoppe demonstrates that while it is of course possible for one man to initiate violent aggression against another man and his property, he cannot upon pain of contradiction argue that he has a right to do any such thing, for by its very nature, the essence of discourse is to concede to one’s opponent the right to use his vocal chords, chest cavity, tongue, throat, etc., and to stand or sit on a certain piece of property. Thus, in arguing for the right to throttle people or steal their possessions, one cannot pass the test of self-reference.

Its from an essay by Walter Block, “National Defense and the Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Clubs”

[hayekianxyz]

He means that when you argue somebody you presume that they control their body.

[Sphairon]

And since outside property is merely an extension of body property, aggression cannot be justified if one presumes that the other guy owns his body. Which you must, according to Hoppe, if you try to engage in a talk with him.

[liege]

Thanks to both of you.

[Nitroadict]

@Sphairon

And since outside property is merely an extension of body property, aggression cannot be justified if one presumes that the other guy owns his body. Which you must, according to Hoppe, if you try to engage in a talk with him.

Fascinating. I almost got the quote until this finished it for me, thanks.

[hayekianxyz]

See here for more:

The Justice of Economic Efficiency [Full Edition of Vol. 9, No. 2 (Winter...

http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/Soc&Cap7.pdf

[Stranger]

@GilesStratton

He means that when you argue somebody you presume that they control their body.

Much beyond presuming, you concede that they own their body and concede that, in order for them to materially exist to participate in the argument, private property was necessary.

[krazy_kaju]

When you argue, you concede that you own your own thoughts, and therefore your body. This means that all beings capable of argumentation own themselves. This axiomatic self ownership means that you are also the owner of all property you homestead. Thus, any aggression against another argument-capable being’s self or property is in fact a logical contradiction.

[Skeptik]

When I argue, I concede that I argue. Whatever giant leaps you take from there to self-ownership are hardly axiomatic.

[nirgrahamUK]

skeptic, when you argue and you concede that you do. do you have the right to argue, or are you being immoral?

[Stranger]

@Skeptik

When I argue, I concede that I argue. Whatever giant leaps you take from there to self-ownership are hardly axiomatic.

No, when you argue you concede that you wish for others to engage in argument with you. The interpersonal aspect is what makes it impossible to argue that private property rights do not exist. You concede them the moment you engage someone in argument.