Humans possess the unique ability to reason, communicate and engage in argumentation.  Argumentation isn’t a neutral or arbitrary act.  It presupposes certain truths.  Among these is acknowledgment of self-ownership and the principle of nonaggression. These concepts are foundational to the very act of engaging in discourse.

Argumentation is purposeful, requiring the use of logic and reason to present and defend truth claims.  This process assumes that the participants respect each other’s ability to reason, which inherently requires nonaggression.  One can’t coherently argue while simultaneously attacking or denying the other’s right to speak, as this would render the argument meaningless.  In other words, the act of arguing itself relies on mutual recognition of each participant’s autonomy.

At its core, argumentation presupposes private property.  The very act of speaking involves using one’s own body, such as the vocal cords, tongue, and lungs, to produce sound.  By engaging in argumentation, one affirms control over their body, thereby recognizing it as their property.  To deny private property while arguing is to commit a performative contradiction—an act that invalidates itself.  A denial of private property requires the use of private property, namely one’s own body, to make the claim.

This extends beyond individual ownership of the body.  For argumentation to occur, there must also be mutual recognition of each participant’s ownership.  The act of arguing, as Murray Rothbard observed, is life-affirming because it inherently respects the other’s right to exist, speak, and reason. By choosing argumentation over physical force, individuals demonstrate a preference for cooperation and life over conflict and destruction.

Consider a scenario: Crusoe and Friday, stranded on an island, engage in a debate about the division of resources.  Crusoe claims ownership of the fish he caught, while Friday demands half.  The very act of Friday arguing for the fish demonstrates his acknowledgment of Crusoe’s ownership, even if he disputes it.  If Friday truly believed in the absence of property rights, he would take the fish by force without argument.  The moment he appeals to reason, he concedes the principle of self-ownership and the legitimacy of property.  To act otherwise, substituting reason with coercion, leads to perpetual conflict, undermining the possibility of social order.

Private property is not merely a convenient social construct but the only logical foundation for resolving disputes over scarce resources.  The concept of homesteading, where one gains ownership of previously unowned resources through direct control and use, is an extension of self-ownership.  Without private property, argumentation and cooperation collapse into chaos, as there would be no framework for resolving conflicts peacefully.

In essence, private property and argumentation are inseparably linked.  Argumentation requires nonaggression, nonaggression presupposes self-ownership, and self-ownership is the basis of private property.  Truth itself relies on this foundation.  Without private property, the very act of seeking truth through argumentation becomes impossible.  Thus, private property is not just a practical necessity.  It is an ethical imperative required for truth, social order, and peaceful coexistence.

References

Hans-Hermann Hoppe; The Economics and Ethics of Private Property

Stephan Kinsella; Argumentation Ethics and Liberty