Argumentation Ethics

Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argument from argument
i.e. Can you justify aggression towards someone?

1. argumentation is and must be a conflict-free interaction used to derive truth values, i.e. disputing contradicting claims between both parties - arguing otherwise results in an obvious contradiction (Law of Non-Contradiction)
2. the opposite of argumentation would be aggression (conflict initiation), this is Jungle Law which succumbs to the the fallacy of the Primacy of Consciousness
3. arguing for aggression in particular, presupposes the norm of non-aggression as argumentation is a conflict-free interaction meaning this argument is a performative contradiction (Law of Non-Contradiction)
   This is akin to saying, "I ought not speak" or "People are always indifferent to doing things" or "We ought not argue" — the very act of proposing these propositions, presupposes the very opposite of the claim being made therefore contradicting oneself and thus being false.
   i.e. "I ought not speak (by speech)" = FALSE = "I ought aggress (by non-aggression)"
4. furthermore from argumentation we get Property Rights, as to deny this in argumentation would be to presuppose one's self-ownership as well as the interlocutor's — (why else would you need to engage with him if you owned him? clearly you do not and cannot)
   This means any argument against Property Rights is as though it is not presupposed all while presupposing it. It is precisely through argumentation we know that Property Rights exists.

Aggression's contradiction as a method of truth-seeking

To elaborate further, though we need not, an argument in favour of aggression is effectively an argument which attempts to show that why we may aggress against others to redistribute scarce resources.

1. I think we should aggress towards people in particular situations to figure out who gets what
2. I recognize that using aggression towards you cannot convince you that aggression is a valid means of divvying up resources
   i.e. hitting you/robbing you/threatening you cannot prove anything to you, meaning as a method of deriving truth values it is FALSE
3. So I will use aggression" (aggression prime), a conflict-free method (argumentation), to prove that aggression is okay, meaning argumentation as method of deriving truth values is TRUE
4. Contradiction: aggression cannot be known to be false in deriving truth values and also be claimed to be true

Misconceptions as Counterarguments

• AE only applies during the course of an argument
  If conclusions reached in argumentation only matter during the course of the argumentation then that would apply to all conclusions. Meaning an argument showing 2+2=4 only matters in that instance and outside of argumentation we can believe it is it 3 or 5 or 7. This argument itself falls on its own grounds — that conclusions of arguments only matter in argumentation, meaning that its argument is as worthless as its claim itself. Furthermore, this argument broadly speaking would be the complete abdication of truth itself making this an outright false counterargument.

• AE only applies to the body parts required for an argument
  The second counterargument is that argumentation ethics only prevents violence towards the body parts that one is using in the course of an argument. That it may be true, that one would contradict himself by cutting his interlocutors tongue out, but would not by breaking his legs. This counterargument completely misses the mark in that Hoppe’s argument is not about which body parts are being used, its about solving the dispute through peaceful rather than violent means (argumentation is and must be a conflict-free interaction). Therefore it is certainly true that breaking a man's legs is violent, but this is an impermissible move in an argument.

Other notes

The argument from argument gives us "truth values" — we ought not aggress, this is not derived from some apodictically true axiom, it is not analytically true, but rather dialectically true which is another objective foundation for truth.
In the same way parallel lines are 2 lines that never meet is not analytically true — we did not go out into nature and measure all the line possibilities to see prove it, but rather its definition holds true by its logical construction of what makes these lines parallel.
So in closing, any ethic that allows for even a smidge of aggression is contradictory and thus false.