Ego-utilitarianism has a corollary political philosophy called Weak-Libertarianism
weak-libertarianism: the idea that a monopoly of force and its use to restrict competition is an inefficient method in determining the allocation of scarce resources to production relative to a free and competitive market (the deadweight loss due to monopoly argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNcPxPz9fng). therefore the weak-libertarian endorses freedom/liberty from government (weak liberty). this is in contrast with conventional libertarianism which endorses freedom/liberty from all aggression (strong liberty). the weak-libertarian acknowledges that aggression is still a valid strategy in a free market, but that aggression will be more efficient since the aggressor must use their own resources to aggress where the state spends other people’s money. Since the goals of two meta-selves will almost never be perfectly aligned, using another’s resources will tend to be less cost conscious allowing for more frivolous spending. This is the mechanism behind the inefficiency of the state.
the weak-libertarian label belies its definition since the weak-libertarian has the additional tool of aggression to add to its strategy space in achieving the political objective of freedom from the state (monopoly of force). being a weak-libertarian does not preclude voting, taking handouts from government, and especially accelerationism (the idea that the quickest and best way to freedom from government is LEGALLY contributing to its fiscal collapse, its greatest weakness).
Egoutism/Weak-Libertarianism also endorses the Non-Aggression Aphorism (N.A.A.)
the non-aggression aphorism says that aggression is a very costly alternative compared to voluntary transactions with other people. and therefore is MOST LIKELY not to be in the actor’s best meta-self interest. but the N.A.A. acknowledges there can be circumstances when aggression IS meta-self profitable and therefore SHOULD be preferred by the actor (notice an ought is derived from an is, see my video on oughtism: a resolution of the is/ought dichotomy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b90cdqVvefo).
hence, weak-libertarians dont believe in rights since all types of aggression is an option
belief in the N.A.A. roughly says most but not all aggression is “immoral”. but this does not preclude the possibility that in the long run, society will approach something close to the N.A.P. (non-aggression principle). in other words its a safer “principle” to adopt since you have a lower chance of being proven wrong later (the possibility that aggression will always have a role in an efficient economy at any point in time).
non-aggression aphorism principle naap ? lol
or N.A.R.T. (non-aggression rule of thumb)