Bridging the Use-Ownership Gap: A Reformulation of Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics on Praxeological Grounds

Proving the right to own property when it is not possessed has been an enduring problem for Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. This article argues that Hoppe’s theory successfully establishes first users’ absolute right to possess property but proposes a reformulation of the theory, premised on arbitration as the chosen means of conflict resolution, which proves the right to ownership. Praxeological analysis of conflict reveals four methods of resolving conflict: deference, transaction, arbitration, and conflict. This article argues that the choice to engage in arbitration presupposes principles which include but go beyond those identified by Hoppe and Stephan Kinsella. From these presuppositions, procedural and substantive principles can be deduced which lay the foundation for an entire body of law that includes basic rules of property law, such as a right of first users to acquire property and a right to own property which persists when the property is not in the owner’s possession. Thus, the use-ownership gap is bridged and a right to own property is proved. The article concludes by inviting future scholarship in other areas of law which extends this praxeological analysis based on arbitration as the foundational legal act.