the exclusion axiom/criterion of property states: an object (another meta-self) is owned by a person or group of people (a meta-self) if the instances of complement of their meta-self are excluded from the object AND no meta-self component/sub meta-self is excluded from the object (notice it does not matter who is providing the exclusion service). The corollary of this is that at any point in time, the CUMULATIVE will and ability to exclude others determines what object is what meta-self’s property (just like the sum of all forces in a closed system on a physical object result in a net force).
This is in stark contrast to the non-sensical libertarian ethic of rights.
i will attempt to show here, that rights are a vestige of state and religious indoctrination. there are no magic privileges that exist for everyone. this method of classifying property is not consistent with the free market.
first, rights either describe a set of action (morality) or they are an entitlement provided via a social contract.
morality (right and wrong) only makes sense with respect to a primary goal. failing to define the primary objective(s) is the equivalent to religious declaration (like the ten commandments and the non-aggression principle). if rights are a description of morality, then the person arguing for them must present a well defined primary objective so one can verify the “righteousness” of this set of action (utility toward the goal(s)). to avoid further confusion, this well-defined goal must be perspective specific in order to evaluate the relative value of any action (see my relative theory of value series here). a tenet of egoutism holds that the only perspective of concern for an actor is their meta-self (perpetuating weighted instances of one’s definition). taking into account several perspectives will necessarily create contradictions in cases of extreme rivalry.
if rights are an entitlement provided via social contract, then the libertarian who criticizes social contracts and entitlements and advocates rights has the additional task of reconciling these contradictory beliefs. calling them “norms” instead of social contracts does not resolve this contradiction. if rights are a societal norm, what good is it to say i have the right to inject myself with a deadly virus. any ethic that totally disregards meta-self interest is irrational and should be discounted if not totally ignored. more importantly, societal norms necessarily imply that society will allow “right” action and punish those who commit “wrong” actions. all laws, privileges, and contracts are only as good as the enforcement behind them. if one is appealing to the meta-self interest of society, one must show that providing rights for all people at all times is profitable/sustainable (in terms of utility toward egoutism’s primary objective of existence). and it is easy to construct counterexamples that show there will always be circumstances where providing rights is cost prohibitive.
our constitutional rights are granted by a government that frivolously spends other people’s money to defend them. the ability to enforce them substantiates the entitlement. without this enforcement these rights are effectively non-existent.
to say a person has the right to do anything as long as one does not aggress against another’s property creates absurdities when one applies a simple analysis.
certainly the concept of rights becomes ridiculous when one considers all the actions that are impossible that do not violate another’s property. my right to travel faster than the speed of light must exist if it does not deprive anyone of their property. certainly this right is absurd. if you accept this, then rights do not make any sense without the cumulative will and ability of all society to provide them.
to resolve these paradoxes, it must be that the libertarian is proposing that these entitlements will be guaranteed by the rest of society. if the libertarian claims property rights are more fundamental then why isnt food and water guaranteed? certainly they are at least if not more fundamental that defense itself.
ego-utilitarian analysis says there is no free-market rationale that guarantees a society or another meta-self will provide these rights for all people at all times. a common libertarian mantra is that property rights are determined by the homesteading principle and subsequent voluntary exchange. for a libertarian to propose that society will provide assurances that property rights are not violated focuses only on the benefits of non-aggression and not the cost of enforcing it. this is a cardinal sin of economic analysis. this lack of cost consciousness is the very same statist mentality libertarians criticize. the libertarian who believes in rights, thinks we have legitimate claims to the service of justice. this is not inherently different from the liberal who claims each person has a right to education, healthcare, and a guaranteed minimum income. there is no inherent difference between civil and natural rights. they both demand a service be provided without regard to the cost and benefit of the meta-self that provides them. libertarians also completely ignore the benefits of violating other people’s “rights” in certain circumstances (which i will discuss in my follow up video).
once this argument is accepted, one can discard the entire concept of rights and restrict the conversation to what desires and abilities would exist AND BE SUSTAINABLE (ego-utilitarian morality) in a free market. so the question were left to deal with is what would perfectly rational person or society do in the face of an aggression? and when would it be in the interest of a meta-self to provide defense, restitution, or punishment services?
i will answer all these questions in my next presentation on the exclusion criterion/axiom of property and demonstrate this ethic to be the true free market mechanism that determines both positive (descriptive) and normative (prescriptive) property.