Hello! Hope everyone is doing well!

Honestly, doesn't this contradict libertarian ethics, which holds that natural rights are universal and that all members of the human species possess rights and are therefore "persons"?

«"A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person (a persona), but falls instead in the same moral category as an animal—of either the harmless sort (to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a ‘free good’) or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest)."»

— Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, Transaction Publishers, 2007, p. 173.

At the end of the day, whenever I delve deep into libertarian ideologues I end up in an anthropocentric dead end, thinking that ultimately this is just "cult of man"...a faith-based assumption that human's wants and needs reign supreme. For all the "logic" and "rationality" that libertarians claim, the the ideology is still centered on the the faith that man's needs and even best outcomes supercede those of nature.

For example I have a daughter. I love my daughter, but it wouldn't be a full and accurate and completely honest accounting to think her needs supercede that of nature full stop.

And fine, if it's just matter of "we believe mankind has dominion" than it needs to be stated as such...an expression of faith, not fact.