Note the following arguments in their succinctness:
From John Stuart Mill (5.6): Liberty is necessary for development of the individual. IF one wants development, THEN one wants liberty. Of course the one who promotes coercive control by non-owners (government/thief) can simply reject the IF. He rarely does. He asserts that he can force development. He must be brought to see the necessity of the ingredient named liberty.
From Herbert Spencer (5.7): Liberty is necessary for satisfaction (happiness). IF one wants happiness, THEN one wants liberty. Of course the one who promotes coercive control by non-owners (government/thief) can simply reject the IF. He rarely does. He asserts, ridiculously but loudly, that happiness is possible through his involuntary commitment of the producing ones. He must be brought to see the necessity of the activization of individual faculties for happiness and how this leads to the equal liberty principle.
From Isabel Paterson (5.8): nothing can be taken from the producer ahead of maintenance of production. IF one wants charity (do-gooding), THEN one must want to maintain production. Of course the one who promotes coercive control by non-owners (government/thief) can simply reject the IF. He rarely does. He asserts, confidently, that he knows better than the producers producing what is required for the maintenance of production. He must be brought to see what the conditions of better production really are (he wasn’t around, apparently, to see the difference between East and West Germany for example).
In each of the above cases he who promotes coercive control by non-owners can reject the IF. What is wanted is an argument for private property (the heart of liberty) so powerful that it is unphased by such attempts. Such an argument is produced by Hans Herman Hoppe. It is itself succinct. Its force is proportional to its brevity. Note that in each of the above cases the conclusion may be evaded through rejection of the IF. Rejection.
Rejection. What is that? It is an action performed by an individual using linguistic tools. It is impossible unless the individual performing it harnesses his body and all that it entails (mind, energy, muscle, attention, larynx, tongue (or hand if writing), etc.). Is there anything presupposed in the use of these means of rejecting? There is. He who rejects, he who asserts, he who puts forward an objection, he who does any of these things lays claim to this body and puts it to use.
Let me use different language to make the point more forcefully. He who acts (in this case rejects) employs means (in this case the body) and displays his ownership (the right to exclusive control over the means).
This is important. But before it is important it should be noted that it is UNAVOIDABLE and INESCAPABLE. He who argues against private property rights must lay claim to private property rights in order to argue against private property rights.
Socrates would chuckle. But Socrates would patiently sit with the confused who is involved in the embarrassment of performative contradiction. This embarrassment is not good. But it is necessary. He will look for alternatives. But of course looking is an action. He will try this or that strategic move. But of course…
His final move is to dehumanize himself by employing violence without justification. This is not human. It is animal. It is the way of the predator.
The conclusion reached, that private property is an unavoidable and accepted ingredient in human action with all the implications about the unjustifiability of coercive control (government or thief) is embedded in us.
Go ahead, reject my argument. To Hans Herman Hoppe is owed a great debt for the clarity with which he put the natural law of human life.