Not surprisingly, argumentation ethics does not provide a libertarian panacea.
The Argumentation Ethics Argument for 100 Percent Self-Ownership
(3) His "argumentation ethics" is an argument from the features of argumentative activity to the conclusion that each person has the moral rights to self-ownership, to acquire property in unowned resources by mixing her labor with them, and to exchange property with others by agreement.
44; Robert Murphy and Gene Callahan, "Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Argumentation Ethic: A Critique," Journal of Libertarian Studies 20, no.
--(May 27, 2011) "Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide," Mises Daily, mises.org/daily/5322/
19, 2002) "Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan," Anti-state.com, www.antistate.com/article.php?article_id=312
The title of Andrew Young's paper, "Argumentation Ethics and the Question of Self-Ownership," suggests that it is about argumentation ethics (also known as the argument from argumentation or the argument from reason).
The objective of argumentation ethics is to determine which propositions--in particular, which normative propositions--are undeniable in any argumentation.
Argumentation ethics does not fit the modern academe's dominant paradigm of empirical science and its attendant positivistic and scientistic methodologies.
Consequently, the norms implied in argumentation ethics can enter the discourses of positivists only as "mere conventions" or as perhaps disguised empirical statements.
Hoppe (2006, 399-418) himself has done a lot of work in elaborating on his own argumentation ethics and in replying some of his critics.
More recently, Godefridi (2004, 9) calls upon is-ought problem for criticizing Hoppe's defense of the self-ownership axiom: Here it is an ingenious and fascinating attempt of using the argumentation ethics of Apel and Habermas for defending Rothbard's axiom.