Exclusion Axiom/Criterion of Property vs. Property Rights

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.





How to Debunk Argumentation Ethics and Praxeology 4 dummiez

Argumentation Ethics and Praxeology are pseudo-logically based disciplines that attempt to deceive people who have no formal training in logic. The purpose of this video is to present a brief but effective argument that shows the absurdity of the foundations of Argumentation Ethics and Praxeology.

Argumentation Ethics and Praxeology rely on the fallacious proof by performative contradiction.  This sleight of hand logical “proof” involves making a statement, conflating the statement with a completely different trivial statement, proving the trivial statement, and then claiming to have proven the original more substantial statement.

Argumentation Ethics makes the statement “EVERYONE ALWAYS owns themselves” then fallaciously equates this with the trivial statement “you cannot deny YOU own yourself IN THE MOMENT ONE DENIES IT” 

Praxeology makes the statement “ALL human action is purposeful” then fallaciously equates this with the trivial statement “one cannot deny SOME of THEIR OWN action is purposeful”

The statement “ALL x is y” is not logically equivalent to “SOME x is y”.  The first statement is a universal statement that applies for all “x” at all times.  The second is a much more trivial existential statement that applies to some “x”.  Universal statements are much harder to prove logically because one must prove the case for all x.  an existential statement is validated if the statement is true for at least one x.



now the logically ignorant person may be tempted to argue that these “performative contradiction” arguments work by induction and are true for all people. but they dont realize when you change the statement to a denial claim (“one cannot deny one’s own…”) then the argument only applies to those who ARE ABLE TO RESPOND.  because the term “cannot” refers to either committing the “performative contradiction” OR the fact that one literally CANNOT respond/deny . the later is what argumentation ethics and praxeology totally ignore.

This fallacy is identical to statistical response bias. If i first set out to prove the statement “ALL people have phones in ALL INSTANCES” with a sample constructed from a phone-in survey, i can easily come to the fallacious conclusion that the statement is true. proving the statement, “people who call in cannot deny THEY THEMSELVES have phones IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE” is insufficient to prove “ALL people have phones in ALL INSTANCES”


one can ask, “if egoutism is a proponent of liberty from government, then why give the tools to debunk a school of thought that has similar goals?”  My answer to this my goal is inherently different from anarcho-capitalism in that i only want freedom from government, not all aggression.   more importantly, not only do goals have to justified, but if one is concerned with convincing intelligent people for the long term,  you must make sure the methodology in reaching those conclusions is unassailable.  egoutism, not argumentation ethics, praxeology, upb, or objectivism is the ONLY viable long term economic morality. it applies formal mathematical logic instead of sophistry and wordy rationalizations.

Ego-Utilitarianism: Weak-Libertarianism and The Non-Aggression Aphorism

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)

Universality: A Universal Philosophical Blunder

One of the most abused terms used in modern libertarian philosophy is the word “universal”.  at the moment i can only think of one other term that is more abused than this,  which is the term “subjective”, but ill be addressing the ambiguous and often contradictory nature of “subjective” in a separate video.

the wide spread misconception of libertarian figures such as hoppe and molyneux that something is “universal” if the value of this universal property is the same for all people. this is and isnt true depending on how you interpret it.  this conflation has caused wide spread confusion within the realm of morality if not all of philosophy

the problem with the analysis of “universality” by “philosophers” like hoppe and molyneux is that they have not taken into account the CRITICAL variable of perspective when trying to evaluate the “universality” of a value. its apparent these types of “philosophers” have not had their “relative value” revolution in their moralities.

it is PERFECTLY analogous to the general relativity revolution in physics.  before einstein articulated general relativity, it was always believed that things like time, length, mass, and energy were “universal” (constants)..  but this myopic view was quickly overturned.  einsteins theory articulated an empirically accurate view that these properties/values were dependent upon the conditions of the observation.  things like time and length (time dilation and lorentz contraction) dont make any sense when you omit the critical variable of the conditions of observation (not the observer).  that elapsed time of an event and length of an object are different for different conditions of observation. the true universality of these properties/values are revealed in the fact that anyone can evaluate elapsed time or object length given all the variables that determine them including perspective. the mathematical relation/function that determines these properties is truly universal (it can be evaluated by anyone given all the critical variables and information to process them).  modern philosophy has conflated universality into meaning the value of  this function is a constant, a totally fallacious idea.


now molyneux and hoppe commit several methodological errors in formulating their ideas of universality.  their idea of classifying all aggression as immoral in any circumstance would be as fallacious as saying the gravitational force of the earth is the same for any object (everything’s weight is the same).  this totally disregards perspective (since the gravitational force of the earth is dependent upon the mass of the object in question). with respect to morality, the conditions under which any action are performed make all the difference in determining its moral value.  egoutism does not preclude the possibility that certain acts of aggression, given the correct circumstances, can be moral since it values all action/strategy with respect to an evolutionary principle, instead of religious doctrine. (egoutism defines morality as the optimum, or pairwise greater, strategy in achieving the perpetuation of instances of one’s meta-self)

while on one hand it seem intuitive that aggression is wrong (since it is an economically expensive action relative to voluntary transaction),  one the other hand it is also intuitive that one should aggress if the situation, not necessarily extreme, dictates (when benefits exceed costs). religious philosophers with low standards of knowing feel that if its good enough it is moral.  unfortunately reality can be much more complex than they care to consider and nature rewards the moral models that can precisely describe what natural selection selects for.  just because defining an optimal universal morality is difficult, you do not pretend a rule of thumb/aphorism is a principle/law.  its both intellectually lazy and dishonest. its the moral equivalent to saying newtonian mechanics is a physical law.  just because newtonian models have useful prediction capabilities in “normal” circumstances you dont ignore the extremes in which these set of laws totally loses all accuracy.

you get adverse reactions from the nap apologists such as scoffing at “lifeboat situations” with such remarks as “yeah but thats unlikely to happen”.  this is an intellectually dishonest way out of a sound argument.  its like a person who defends newtonian physics as an ABSOLUTE law of the universe were to ask “yeah but when will we ever reach the near speed of light to experience relativistic effects?”  the fact that egoutism presents an alternative moral ethic that describes BOTH normal situations (using the non-aggression APHORISM, N.A.A. or the non-aggression RULE OF THUMB, N.A.R.T.) and a more precise general ethic for all situations (perpetuation of the existence of one’s meta-self).  the logical consistency of egoutism lies in the fact that the non-aggression aphorism can be deduced as an estimate from the primary principle of egoutism (like newtonian mechanics can be deduced from assuming very low speeds relative to the speed of light)



when navigating morality one must be able identify any “universal”moral value for any action. the universality actually lies in the evaluation, and not from a constant value that”philosophers” like molyneux and hoppe would falsely lead you to believe.

what sense does it make for an actor to prefer someone elses action?  this question  may seem to generate paradoxes.  the resolution to this is that one cannot prefer someone elses actions (or at the very least it makes no rational sense in preferring something you have no power to directly control).  all preferences of any person are necessarily revealed by the choice of THEIR OWN actions, and not anyone elses. for instance when one says one thing but does another, their actions tell you their true preferences.


to say you prefer someone else’s actions is a non-sensical proposition. there is no valid reason that the goals of two different people (meta-selves) will necessarily have the same objectives.  egoutism also says one can always translate any such non-sensical statement of a preference of another’s action, into a preference of one’s own action.

for instance when one says they prefer that no one commits an act of aggression against them it must be also true that they take any measure necessary to try to prevent aggression upon them.

given the fact it does not make any sense to have a preference for anyone else’s action,  the only logical resolution is to restrict the evaluation of moral value to the ACTOR’S perspective so we dont run into any unnecessary paradoxes like those presented in stefan molyneux’s “universal preferable behavior”.  when one does this, the reasonable standard of morality changes from the golden rule (do onto others as you would have done onto yourself) to a more perspective conscious and logically consistent rule (did the actor do what a perfectly rational person would have done in their place? or lower standards…)


once perspective is established one can begin the moral calculation of an action. the moral value of each action, including aggression, is defined by the circumstances under which it is enacted.  its the same for any analysis of strategy. for instance in chess, the queen is a highly critical piece, and in only rare circumstances should one sacrifice or lose it. to implement the obtuse rule of “never sacrifice the queen” loses sight of the primary objective of capturing your opponents king. its just as obtuse to eliminate any strategy that implements aggression even in extreme circumstances merely for the sake of religious declaration.  it is incumbent upon those who defend nap to prove aggression is never in one’s evolutionary interest (meta-self interest) since this principle is the only one that is sustainable (consistent with existence). in this case,it is safer to adopt the non-aggression aphorism and never rule out the rare occassional case where aggression is in one’s meta-self interest.

one must take great care in implementing this moral evaluation process when analyzing acts, especially when it comes to aggression.  it is very easy to forget to remove YOUR (meta-self) PERSPECTIVE from the equation to take into account ONLY THE ACTOR’S (meta-self) perspective  by failing to remove the evaluator’s perspective, one will likely prematurely label all aggression as immoral.  this is the same as only accounting for the costs of aggression and ignoring any benefits. the universality of this calculation manifests itself in the fact that once a rational observer admits some aggression can be moral, they are endorsing it for every meta-self IN THOSE CRITICAL CONDITIONS.  for instance, i may endorse eating, but this is not enough. i have not explicitly defined the conditions under which eating is desirable for a person.  one could be overweight and have just finished 5 burgers.  these conditions more than likely warrant a prescription that is significantly different than “eating is desirable”  but given enough care, one can articulate the conditions under which eating is desirable.  now one can replace “eating” with any action including the most egregious forms of aggression one can think of.  this clearly shows what is wrong with the analysis that saying that “some aggression may be moral” equates to an absurd equivalent “i endorse all aggression upon me at all times”.

the universal property of egoutism says that “if an act, which is defined by its particular conditions, is moral, then any meta-self that finds himself in these conditions SHOULD prefer it”





Praxeology: a Logical Fallacy


praxeology is one big logical fallacy since it is built upon a fallacy. look the praxeological statement 1. “(ALL) human action is purposeful behavior” and the fallacious proof by contradiction that follows in this persons video on the methodology of praxeology. first she states  a totally different statement, 2. “if you TRY TO DENY that (ALL) human action is purposeful, YOU would be acting purposely yourself (in that instance). praxeology claims this is a performative contraction and therefore proves 1.  but this is either a fallacy or deception.  what 2. actually proves is that 3. “one cannot DENY that SOME of their own action is purposeful “  

notice that 3  is not an equivalent statement to 1, the original statement praxeology was set out to prove.

analogy: its as if praxeology claimed “every person that ever existed is still alive” therefore “if you try to deny this claim you would prove you yourself are alive and therefore prove the original claim since this is true for all people who try to deny it” the fallacy here is that it only captures the set of people that it is true for and ignores all the people that are dead that cannot argue against it. so in context of human action, purposeless people would never deny  the statement  “all human action is purposeful” even if it were false, but that doesnt mean “all human action is purposeful” is true.

its somewhat related to statistical response bias. only the ones that can respond, respond, but that isnt sufficient to show that all people can respond. imagine i conduct a sample where the hypothesis being tested is that “everyone has a phone” and then restrict my sample to a phone survey where only people can call in to contribute to the data.  i will necessarily conclude, using the fallacious “logic” in the video, that all people have phones, because those who call in cannot deny they have a phone and those who dont have phones cannot call in.

it still is a possibility (no disproof) that a person can act purposefully and argue in one instance then purposelessly act in the next instance. so a person arguing against the statement “all human action is purposeful” is insufficient to prove ALL his own action is purposeful let alone the rest of humanity.

the logical negation of  ” all human action is purposeful” is “there exists human action that is not purposeful”.  one can make this argument and not commit the “performative contradiction” since the person making the argument is not restricted to their own action and purpose.  one can argue that someone else is acting without purpose and not commit a contradiction

now you can just declare “all human action is purposeful” as an axiom, and i have no problem with this. but you cannot say its a valid theorem,  or sound argument.


there are sound reasons why austrian “praxeology” is on the fringe of any conventional peer reviewed academics. praxeology is a non-rigorous form of math and logic, and should not be taken seriously





eagleeye 1975

logic is at the very least a subset of mathematics. they are very arguably the same thing. writing proofs is the ultimate and purest form of logic.  logic is merely deductive reasoning.  philosophy is a loose form of “logic” with ambiguous language.


for every axiom that exists in math, philosophy will have tried to adopt it.  and for every consistent axiom in philosophy, math will have an equivalent.  any extra philosophical axioms that may or may not exist are dubious at best. and the self-ownership axiom isnt even that.  its a genuine fallacy.

adding axioms is a very serious thing if youre going to project them as some general morality.  apparently you dont give it the respect that is required from any intellectually honest and logically capable mind


philosophy without mathematics and science is obsolete. modern philosophy is not needed since mathematics, science, and economics have clearly replaced the role of philosophy in analysis and knowledge.

as far as  axioms are concerned (as i said in my other video which you didnt even watch), they must be true throughout time.  if your self-ownership can be taken from you, either by slavery or murder, then it cannot be an axiom since your “axiom” CAN be falsified for you and IS falsified for somebody throughout time (counterexample past slavery, contemporary slavery, future slavery)

and again, your statement “i own myself” really is “everyone owns themselves” unless your are only arguing for your own self-ownership. and its apparent you meant this for all  points in time therefore your “axiom” must be “all people, at all times, own themselves.” and again this statement can is falsified when someone has the will and ability to overcome the “owner’s” ability to defend it.  if you actually watched my video, not only does an axiom have to be seemingly true at all times, BUT IT MUST NEVER BE ABLE TO BE FALSIFIED.

when it comes to any property including one’s self…

owning your __________ is violatable (meaning all it takes is someone with the will and ability to do so and all your “axioms” become bonafide fallacy)

also if owning yourself is always true, then there is no argument against enslaving  or killing you.  then your whole goal of showing why slavery is wrong becomes moot.

please learn to distinguish between the terms can, is, and ought.  ability statements, descriptive statements, prescriptive statements .  prescriptive statements are a subset of ability statements , and ability statements are a subset of descriptive statements.  

amateur logicians and modern philosophers that arent logicians tend to conflate by using ambiguous poorly defined terms.  that is sophistry.  with proper math training, you learn to differentiate by adopting a well-defined definition set, which obviously you have not done.

what you are trying to establish as an axiom is “a person should own himself”.  but this is perspectiveless and does not evolutionarily make sense with egoutist analysis.

egoutism says that well-defined terms must be a type of well-defined function.  if a term is well defined, it will classify any object in reality as either an element of that definition set (meta-self) or its complement.



you didnt select the best axioms that make sense of the world. you picked the best set of axioms that make sense of rights.

telling a slave he has the right to defend himself when there is no sufficent ability to allow him to do so makes no sense in reality.

just like saying someone has the right to jump to the moon as long as he doesnt violate others right to do so makes no sense.

where is the logical deduction from you own your body to you own everything you produce?that is just other axioms!. therefore i own everything i look at. also another counterexample is laboring a piece of property that you stole. do you own it?  obviously you need to instill a first to labor rule. and also by this silly reasoning you own all intellectual property that your mind “produces”

cost of defending rights has been so diluted you dont even see it.  two man island and costs of rights.




Axioms and self ownership

axioms and definition are the foundations of knowledge and understanding. the limits of knowledge manifest itself in the axioms (in particular, with respect to the people who adopt a set of axioms), as it is impossible to be certain about anything.

while ultimately the choice of axioms is arbitrary, their usefulness is not (just like solving a system of equations).  once a well-defined objective is set (like seeking the truth), the value of your axioms becomes determined.  if your intent is to make sense of rights, then your goal is not intellectually honest (not seeking the truth, since it assumes rights are consistent). since the true purpose of adopting a set of axioms should not be to validate a conclusion that makes you feel better but instead to better explain the world.  Egoutism makes a point to always be careful not to project your emotional meta-self onto a general rule like morality. one could just as easily adopt an axiom that says no one owns themselves (which is equally preposterous) if they were out to prove your concept of “rights” ridiculous.

since all logical deduction is conditional on the set of axioms chosen it is incumbent upon the person (who has a sincere desire to find truth and not to validate the silly idea of rights/entitlements)to choose a set of axioms that meet the following minimum requirements

  1. be sure that each axiom does not have a counterexample that DISPROVES the axiom. the axiom of “Everyone owns themselves” clearly fails this most important test. (also there should be no proof of the axiom since it would not longer be called an axiom)
  2. minimize the number (or scope) of the axioms. since axioms should be assumptions that cannot be proven or disproven but are consistent with all physical evidence (statistical or empirical)
  3. choose the set of axioms so that they are consistent with eachother. (minimize the number of contradictions generated by deductive logic).
  4. resolve as perceptual paradoxes, and makes the best sense of reality, make the most accurate predictions
  5. cover the ground not touched upon by axiom, theorem and law of math and science, remain mutually exclusive of any other axiom (to avoid inconsistencies).


here are some of axioms of ego-utilitarianism that satisfy the rules above:

  • axiom: all math axioms and theorems, and all laws of science (and to a lesser extent economics) are compulsory axioms
  • deduction: therefore evolution exists and is the mechanism that determines existence at anyone one point in space/time.
  • axiom: concepts exist by default
  • axiom: only well defined statements have a true or false value (can be proven or disproven)
  •  …


it would be unfair and intellectually dishonest of me to adopt the axiom “im always right” just because from my perspective its true and it proves you wrong

now the self ownership axiom already blows up when you consider 1. the logical negation of statement “everyone owns themselves” is the statement “there exists a person who doesnt own himself” (throughout time). since there are explicit counterexamples of past, modern, and future slavery. this is sufficient to PROVE that the self ownership statement is UNEQUIVOCALLY FALSE. also murder is a form or removing one’s self-ownership of one’s body.  and i think there exist clear cases of murder…


if you claim that the self-ownership axiom proves rights, then you have to explain the fact that rights have no value when no one provides them. and on a  two man island rights seem to vanishm showing rights are a statist/religious concept

the fallacy that if i reject the self-ownership axiom then i necessarily say its moral for you to beat me up and take my stuff.

brainwashing wasnt my counterexample

at any point in time people can take over self-ownership of another, simply by murdering them or imprisoning them.

right to defend yourself is meaningless. your ability to defend your self is not necessarily sufficent to fend off someone elses ability to violate your “rights”. i doubt jews had this “self-ownership right” back in nazi germany, or black people back in the american slavery days.   why did their rights just vanish?

eagleeye1975 is just projecting his self-interest on morality which just shows he feels he should be able to keep his stuff.  a bias toward wanting to own onesself. also he fails to transcend all the statist and religious bullshit that was inculcated into him and truly pursue truth.

if you want feel good axioms i can just adopt axioms like “i am the best”, ” i never lose an argument”, “value is subjective”

the reason i referenced hoppe is because he made the most compelling logical case for self-ownership (and still failed miserably since trying to prove a clearly false claim is quixotic)

didnt even listen to my property ethic: the exculsion criterion of property

as far as intellectual integrity is concerned, you lose that argument as well since you admit youre out to prove the concept of rights, to justify them. youre not set out to know truth.

also as a determinist, one can make a compelling case you dont even control your own thoughts.  i dont even have to envoke this since my previous arguments are more than sufficient to transform the self-ownership “axiom” into a bonafide self-ownership FALLACY