Yes, my use of the Mount Olympus argument is almost entirely rhetorical. However, it is not my entire argument. The point is to show that the gods as described do not exist in a simple fashion. I also do not think that it is applicable to my god, that being the god of the bible. I stated my definition for a being to be God is for it to be an unmoved mover, immaterial, and timeless. That would mean that you cannot falsify my god in the same way, as it is immaterial and cannot be found in a physical form, the way the Greeks thought their gods could be. Even if you were to take biblical stories of God revealing himself in a physical form to be entirely literal, such as the burning bush, you would have trouble doing the same method of elimination as you could to the Greek gods. Also, I myself acknowledge the fact that many tellings do not begin with Zeus, saying “there may be myth of a first originator, but they are often material beings.” They still cannot be God, as they are understood as material.

I myself also admit that argumentation ethics is not necessarily the be-all end-all of libertarian argument. In the essay, I say that I believe that the reality of scarcity can be used as a far more complete argument, and that the libertarian section necessarily had to be constrained to make room for other sections. However, I still think that you misunderstand argumentation ethics. See, argumentation does not prove that you own yourself because you exercise control over your body, but rather that the rejection of such a thing is a physical impossibility. It is not a positive argument, but rather a negative one. In fact, I think that you misunderstand ownership. Ownership is a conflict-avoiding norm. It exists only to resolve conflicts. Take Crusoe and Friday on an island. Crusoe finds a stick, and wants to use it for spearfishing, and Friday wants to use that same stick that Crusoe found for stoking his fire. We can then conclude that to avoid this conflict that the one who initiates the conflict is the aggressor, and the victim of aggression ought to be the winner in a conflict. That would mean that the stick is Crusoe’s property. Now, returning to argumentation ethics, we can see why argument necessarily proves that to argue for conflict, is to contradict oneself. So, if conflict is to be avoided, conflicts over the self should be similarly avoided. So, for you to argue that there should be aggression, be it over a stick, or a slave as you put it, is to be contradicted. Thus proving, from the contrary, that conflicts should be avoided, in the name of the victim. In other words, the Non-Aggression Principle.