Reply to Andrew Young's "Argumentation Ethics and the Question of Self-Ownership"

In his "Argumentation Ethics and the Question of Self-Ownership" (2015), Andrew T. Young claims that, next to Hans-Hermann Hoppe's ethics of self-ownership, a subclass of systems based on every person owning part of every person also meets the criteria of being validated by the ethics of argumentation and is consistent with the requirements that an ethical system should qualify as a categorical imperative and allow for the physical survival of humanity. I argue that Young fails to understand argumentation ethics and that his alternative ethics cannot be considered categorically imperative; it is likely to stimulate rather than diminish political conflicts.