If argumentation were engaged with some individual for the purpose of claiming that they are a slave who does not have self-ownership, a contradiction would arise. This is due to the fact that claiming the individual is a slave to some other being indicates that they are in reality just a mouthpiece for that other being. One would therefore be arguing with the being in control of the individual. This however contradicts with the presumption that argumentation is being engaged with the individual that one is claiming to be a slave. It is impossible to claim to someone without contradiction that they do not possess self-ownership, proving self-ownership to be true.1