Re: Your argument proves too much. If Alice owns herself, then she has the power to lie, to contradict herself and to be a hypocrite. Bob cannot have any argument which compels Alice not to lie, contradict herself or be a hypocrite. Every logical argument is implicitly prefixed with the statement, “If you don’t want to contradict yourself, then …” If Alice is a self-owner, she may even assign her own private definitions to words, words such as “argument” “lie” “hypocrisy” “contradiction” “false” and so on.
It proves just enough .
[center]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUIHO2Yuxc4[/center]
This is an excerpt where Hoppe responds to the critique of the universalizability principle, the absurdity of a private language, Ludwig Wittgenstein and contradiction. Hoppe’s response starts at 4.28+ but the intro question helps put things into perspective.
Re: “What Alice does not control is the definition of words as everyone except Alice uses them. You can call this “objective” or “inter-subjective” meaning or whatever you like, but the essential attribute of language is that it is a posteriori. Language arises not from philosophers in armchairs arguing out modus ponens - it arises from actual usage.”
Seems like you need to take a refresher course. [Note on “objective, intersubjectively ascertainable”] A friendly introduction to Hoppe’s AE