That Hoppe's argumentation ethics is a justified theory of rights

I will here outline basic Hoppean argumentation ethics and the reasoning behind the justice of the NAP, self ownership, and private property. Later rounds will be devoted to my opponent's objections and my defense of the arguments and their conclusions. The basic concept of Hoppean argumentation ethics is that A) Nothing can be justified if not through argumentation(whether empirical, a priori, ext.), B) Argumentation presupposes libertarian ethics and property rights(non-aggression, self ownership, private property), and C) To deny libertarian rights is to fall into a performative contradiction. An example of which would be the statement "I am dead." The very act of making the statement contradicts the intent of the statement. By even claiming to be dead, one proves the opposite. Argumentation is necessary for justification My first point will be to prove point A, the only things that can be justified are justified through argumentation. That is, if one wants to justify a point, let's take for example that the sky looks blue, he must engage in some form of argumentation in order to show why his belief is justified. To show the truth behind this, one can simply look at the opposite conclusion that not everything needs to be justified through argumentation. But by the very act of making this claim and trying to persuade other's of that point, one is proving the point. It is contradictory to argue to justify the point that one need not argue to justify. P1: One need not engage in argumentation to justify a point.- Opposite charge P2: P1 necessarily presupposes it's recipracol claim. Arguing to prove that arguing is not needed to prove results in performative contradiction. One presupposes the opposite conclusion by their claim. C: Argumentation is necessary for justification. Argumentation presupposes libertarian ethics and property rights. This will be the major focus of the debate. My intent is to show that argumentation presupposes that one owns themselves, that aggression is unjustifiable, and that private property is justified. Non-aggression principle For discourse to truly be argumentation, a necessary prerequisite is for people arguing to be relatively free in their actions. Not to say that there cannot be rules or structures for a debate, but obviously if one person has a gun and the other is tied to a chair on fear of death, true exchange cannot take place. So we can prove that argumentation presupposes free discourse and prohibits any actions that would detract from this. Examples of such actions would be anything aggressive i.e. fraud, threats, or physical battery. Nothing inherently aggressive can be justified during argumentation. But then an opponent of argumentation ethics could point out that even if non-aggression can be presupposed during argumentation, that does not mean that it is presupposed to be true any and everywhere at all times. However, if we refer to my original point, we can see that only argumentation can justify a concept of action and so therefore, non-aggression is a pre-requisite for anything to be justified. Private Property For one to argue against anyone's ability to use resources is again to engage in performative contradiction. For the act of claiming so is also an act of using a scarce resource(mouth, vocal cords, lungs). It is impossible to engage in argumentation without using scarce resources(one's body). So we can prove that some justification is needed for property rights, whether they be unowned, collectively owned, or privately owned. The first option, that certain or all things should be unowned runs into it's own problems. For something to be unowned, potential land claimers or homesteaders must be stopped from trying to take ownership of the land which at the very least implies either partial or full ownership. Non-ownership simply runs into the same obstacles as collective and private ownership in that there is still needed justification for not allowing others to take possession and how this at least partially implies private or collective ownership. Next is collective ownership. Collective ownership runs into problems of it's own. For things to be collectively owned, usually the democratic process is used to make decisions. But just as with non-ownership, collective ownership implies private ownership in that to even request permission to use another resource is to imply that one's body is private. Also ,both non-ownership and collective ownership not only assume private property but argumentation itself, disproves no-ownership and collective ownership altogether. Homestead principle, self ownership Hoppean argumentation ethics brings justification for self ownership by drawing upon the non-aggression axiom and private property. For how do we apply private property to others or ourselves. The Hoppean answer is the homestead principle as the only ownership theory in line with other presuppositions of discourse. For to argue, one must be alive and able to use certain scarce resources such as food or shelter. Of course claiming could also be used to acquire property. However, just like non-ownership and collective ownership, claiming presupposes ownership already(namely that of the mouth, vocal cords, or anything else needed to claim something. Claiming as a justified method for appropriating property has no starting point to justify it's principles, one must make some sort of argument for claiming as an appropriation while blatantly ignoring the need for owning one's mouth or body before claiming other resources. The homestead principle, on the contrary allows one to appropriate resources they "mix their labor with" as Locke said without presupposing any ownership. They originally homestead their bodies by being the original owners. Collective and non ownership were shown to assume prroperty while claiming property makes the same mistake. That will be it for now. I will expand on the points my opponent finds fault with (as I'm sure he will) based on which points focuses most on. With that in mind, I will now pass the debate on back to my opponent.