Hoppe's basic thesis is that argumentation (discourse) is by nature a conflict-free (non-violent) way of interacting and that it requires individual control of resources (property rights). These presuppositions to discourse imply that the participants agree to both the non-aggression principle and by extension the idea of libertarian rights (i.e. self-ownership and property rights by extension). From this, Hoppe concludes that no one can argumentatively deny libertarian rights without self-contradiction.
Gary Madison makes a similar argument, but elaborates in greater detail. In his book, The Logic of Liberty, he argues that
the various values defended by liberalism are not arbitrary, a matter of mere personal preference, nor do they derive from some natural law. . . . Rather, they are nothing less and nothing more than what could be called the operative presuppositions or intrinsic features and demands of communicative rationality itself. In other words, they are values that are implicitly recognized and affirmed by everyone by the very fact of their engaging in communicative reason. This amounts to saying that no one can rationally deny them without at the same time denying reason, without self-contradiction, without in fact abandoning all attempts to persuade the other and to reach agreement.
Since recognition of these values implies renunciation of the legitimacy of violence, Madison concludes that
it is absolutely impossible for anyone who claims to be rational, which is to say human, outrightly to defend violence .... [As Paul Ricoeur writes:]'. . . violence is the opposite of discourse. . . . Violence is always the interruption of discourse: discourse is always the interruption of violence.' That violence is the opposite of discourse means that it can never justify itself—and is therefore not justifiable—for only through discourse can anything be justified. As the theory of rational argumentation and discussion, liberalism amounts, therefore, to a rejection of power politics.
My previous post provoked some very interesting comments, and I am actually working on a new post addressing some of those comments. A very thoughtful reader actually took a swing at the question posed at the beginning of this post, and I need to address that in greater detail. I hope to see responses from those who believe that violent resistance is some sort of solution. From a purely practical standpoint, I do not understand how it could be effective. From a purely philosophical standpoint, I do not see how it could be consistent. I could be wrong on both counts which is why I continue to pose the question. There is a myriad of strategies available for advancing liberty, but if we are chasing unicorns or tilting at windmills, we will never be effective. Maybe we just need to vote a little bit more... :-D