<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://mises.org/Community/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Do slaves have "self-ownership"?</title><link>http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2009/03/16/do-slaves-have-quot-self-ownership-quot.aspx</link><description>I&amp;#39;d like to extend on my criticism of Hoppe&amp;#39;s argumentation ethics by concretizing the point about the difference between &amp;quot;self-ownership&amp;quot; as it is used ontologically and &amp;quot;self-ownership&amp;quot; as it is used ethically. I realize</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)</generator><item><title>re: Do slaves have "self-ownership"?</title><link>http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2009/03/16/do-slaves-have-quot-self-ownership-quot.aspx#104523</link><pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:36:24 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:104523</guid><dc:creator>Brainpolice</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Apparently it&amp;#39;s rather unpopular.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://mises.org/Community/aggbug.aspx?PostID=104523" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>