Limited Self-Ownership: The Failure of Argumentation Ethics

Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s argumentation ethics has long been a locus of controversy within the libertarian community. Hoppe and his defenders claim to have demonstrated the necessity of affirming absolute self-ownership rights, and thus a strong form of libertarian political theory. Many have rejected Hoppe’s argument as unsound, however. This article aspires to resolve the debate by showing not only that even the most generous reading of Hoppe’s argument fails, but why it does so. Although previous treatments have provided numerous counterexamples to argumentation ethics, none has clearly systematized these counterexamples, explaining the principled flaws in Hoppe’s argument that lie behind them. Two such flaws are particularly important: argumentation ethics is based on a faulty methodology, falsely assuming that it can never be morally licit to participate in another’s use of stolen goods. It also depends upon an arbitrary and simplistic conception of property rights. I conclude that less directly principled defenses of libertarianism are likely to prove a more fruitful outlet for the intellectual energies of those concerned to limit the reach of state power.