There’s no contradiction in saying “aggression is wrong except on Tuesdays” per se. But it seems like you’re treating “something either is or isn’t right” as an additional premise. That’s fine, but no one else is a priori obligated to accept it.
Yes you are, three laws of logic are apriori of argumentation, being that they’re apriori of language.
For him to then claim ownership of himself would be illegitimate, sure, but since I don’t think he has self-ownership any longer
You can’t legitimately have selfownership and then not have it, because it’s inalienable by itself.
Saying something is contradictory doesn’t explain how it’s contradictory. So with the above, you say that ownership of the self is inalienable because alienability would make it contradictory. But that doesn’t tell me how. It’s just an assertion with no explanation behind it. I’d really appreciate it if you’d provide an explanation.
Maybe if could read the explanation in the next sentence before trolling how I’ve offered no explanation.
I recognize that, in order to exercise ownership rights one has over an external object, one must have the right to exercise himself with/over that object. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that he therefore has the right to exercise himself with/over any other external object.
Which has nothing to do with selfownership being inalienable.
there’s no contradiction inherent in the notion of selling oneself
There is. The notion of selfownership being alienable is contradictory because of it’s axiomatic nature, because it’s not founded on something, but it is the foundation, by rejecting it you’re left with nothing, it collapses. Saying that rejecting an axiom is it’s aplication or confirmation is a contradiction.