I really was persuaded by the argumentation ethics (AE).
For everyone who doesn't know, AE runs like this:
P1: Justification is propositional justification;
P2: Argumentation (use of propositional justification in any discuss between people) presumes self-ownership;
Therefore, nobody can do rationally justification about any ethic position if he deny (righ to) self-ownership.
This is pretty simple prima facie and has some ground in the philosophy of Apel-Habermas (argumentation presumes some norms).
But I see a huge problem, at last for "paleolibertarians".
The problem is: all sort of things can be conciliated with "self-ownership".
Yes, pedophilia too.
You can be morally oposite to pedophilia but you can't do anything against it if you presumes AE as correct.
You can't deny kids have self-ownership. The family doesnt' has the ownership of the kid in the approach of AE. So the kid can do anything - since it doesn't violate any self-ownership.
So, I really wanna know: how pedophilia can be combated without disagreed with AE?
This is the only problem I can't answer. How to connect ethics with moral starting with AE?