There are two diametrically opposed claims here about who should control what. They are pretending to be more accommodating, when really what they mean is that they don't care what you do, so long as you uphold capitalist private property. Which is precisely what is in dispute.

Buy this they are trying to claim superiority, claiming that their system allows for all these different types of free association that other anarchists do not. But if an anarchist communist tried to seize the means of production in Ancapistan, they would call their private cops.

People trying to renegotiate the text to be pro LGBT have to make a huge reach, and the excuses you pointed out are just that. The only thing I would warn with saying it condemns homosexuality though is importing modern understanding of sexuality to a culture that did not share that

Sex was less a mutual activity and more something you did to someone else. Penetrating a man violated the system where men are on top. But when the Hebrew Bible gets to sexual ethics for women, it only focuses on sex with slaves, since they are lower on the hierarchy

I'll have to check that out later! But I do think it's worth emphasizing that, while still homophobic, ancient writers had a very different view of sexuality, and the issues they took with things was typically because it violated the patriarchal sexual hierarchy

I think you are mostly correct, and the Bible is certainly very negative at least of male same sex relation and penetration. I would argue that homosexual is still wrong though because they didn't really have an idea of different sexual orientations.

Naming literally any other alternatives he doesn't consider debunks his argument since he's just using process of elimination

This ignores plenty of other alternatives, ironically including John Locke's own stance along with his Lockean proviso. A Proudhonian stance around possession is also missed.

Basically he argues the second option violates his idea of natural law since people have equal human nature while the last one he thinks is practically impossible since any action, he imagines, would need getting everyone's permission to do anything, making it practically impossible.

This is nonsense though because people can obviously claim something without meeting any of the propertarian/Lockean standards for ownership. It's all just more slight of hand, arguing in a circle.

The one I hear more often today tends to combine this argument with Menger's scarcity argument. "Aggression" now is all about "introducing conflict." The idea here is that, if you claim someone that someone else already claimed as property, you introduce conflict, which is always wrong.

Hmm?

Something I noticed a lot when reading Makhno's essays was the frequent division between artificial and natural human organizations. Interesting to see that here too

Any traction theoretically possible with argumentation ethics doesn't get you anywhere close to where Hoppe wants to be. If it can't even establish self-ownership, it absolutely doesn't establish anything else Hoppe wants it to.

Hoppe would not want to say that, but could say it is sufficient that the owner of the land gives me permission to argue there, and would be within their right to revoke that permission. But then the same thing could be true of my supposed self-ownership! Maybe my owner simply allows me to argue.

It is also clear that arguments would require we recognize certain rights Hoppe wouldn't want to. If I need control over my body to argue, I also need control over the land I need to stand on. Does that make me an owner of land whenever someone argues with me, wherever I happen to be?

It also might be time sensitive. Hoppe might argue that a war draft violates his idea of self-ownership, but someone could argue that the draft could be justified in certain circumstances without contradiction if people are not in that circumstance.