Ethics of argument 
One of the greatest contributions of Hans -Hermann Hoppe to liberal thinking was that to answer this important question: why the right of private property is it the moral and ethical foundations of the supreme laws of our societies?
In Indeed, more than one liberal has found, for example during a debate with a socialist ideology pushed into a corner and forced to explain why the right of private property should be the absolute standard that governs our lives. Answer all the more difficult that our era is the master relativism, asserting absolute values to the characters is frowned upon.
is through an angle of attack at first surprising that the German-born philosopher addresses this crucial question: he uses a method developed by his compatriot Jurgen Habermas ; ethics discussion. The principle is simple: the fact to debate, discuss, argue with someone implies, implicitly, the recognition of moral or ethical standards apply to both parties. Without at least implicit recognition of the standards debate could take place, in other words they are necessary to its existence.
What are these standards?
Any discussion, any argument between two people, and this concerns both the trivial discussion of the PMU counter the philosophical essay between ENS, requires that we reach agreement on a minimum point to the fact that we can not agree. It is possible that the two parties can not agree on any point of the discussion, except that they do not agree. This seems extremely tautological but that recognition of this fact implies that anyone can issue opinions that they want and the tool that ensures the expression of his ideas, that is to say, his central nervous system, his vocal cords , his mouth, his whole body in fact, belongs to him. It has exclusive control.
Besides, if we debate it with someone that you like, through argument and not by force, changing his ideas, and therefore his actions, because the production The idea is an action as another. So we want to convince them otherwise. Convincing someone to do otherwise by the argument is to recognize that it controls your body, not you, it will modify its actions only if it adheres voluntarily to your ideas. The term voluntary again refers to the concept of exclusive control over his own body. He is owner of her body and not you, so if you talk to him you would at least acknowledge that.
So when I debate, I affirm that I own my body and my partner is also the owner of his own. It would be absurd to discuss whether or not to own her body for nothing that to discuss means to own her body.
As the owner of his body, and by extension following the logic Lockean private property, it owns what is appropriated first (in the state of nature) that is produced or what the is received through a voluntary exchange. And here we are on track for the liberal philosophy of free trade and more broadly of the principle of nonaggression.
Why justify the right of private property by the debate or argument? After all, we are not forced to struggle to resolve our differences, force is an alternative far from being unthinkable to solve our disputes. And it is precisely on this point discussion of the alternative / strength behind this reflection. What distinguishes man from animals when in conflict resolution, for example with the appropriation of food, is that men may engage in discussion to find a solution. Discussion that uses reason and logic that are peculiar to man, not animals. Obviously I do not pretend that men are guided by infallible wisdom that frees them from any conflict, however history shows us the opposite by countless wars. Many men do not care for others and often use violence when it suits them, and for me it does not prevent me from any discussion which I recognize implicitly the private property of my interlocutor on his body and property to rape a moment later.
But when two men engage in a debate they say, one might say in spite of themselves, the standard of private property.
And again it is through reason and logic we can find a way establish objective standards to reduce conflicts with their portion of more congruent, ie in cases of self defense. And that's what Hans-Hoppe Hermman tried to demonstrate this through the debate / argument / discussion, exclusive means that men have to release them peacefully, involving de facto recognition of private property as a moral norm.
As a socialist is caught in a trap contradictory when he tries to rebut the private property argument. For in arguing against private property it validates the existence of private property which is a condition sine qua non argument. We understand better why today and in the past to the inconsistencies in their ideology of the socialists did not find any hair to achieve their ends, other alternatives to the debate, discussion or argument that the use of force.
