RIGHTS

and
GOVERNMEN
T
 I.The Maxim

We the people have individually sought triumph in our own lives and even in those
closest to us for the satisfaction of ourselves through them. Every day that passes,
desires pass you, some desires hard to accomplish, and some easy. You've hungrily and
envyingly lusted over vacations which you cannot take because your bosses' bring a
drought and famine of time for self and partners, for sex, for socializing with
acquaintances. One day or another we have come to the mortifying emotional
conclusions of ugh's and ahhh's during the day, relieved for finishing the work, and
frustrated that you had to do it in the first place. For I have as well, coming home after
some delicate work of formal alternative education, gaining frustration over the little
devil numbers on my math homework, the un-countable paragraphs for some writing I
have to do, and the seizing "screw this" that fills the air in distress. You start to notice the
slavery that has inflicted your life - no, I mean not to advocate for anarchism - doing
things which you do not desire in order to fulfill the pressures put upon you by society.
"I want to be free," you say.

What seems to pass through your mind is the fact that the industrialist that are
atop you and binding you in chains are hoping for that as well: that is why they even
tried making it up there: the desire to surpass, to perhaps gain comfortable conditions.
They probably wanted economical success, and beyond; they needed other people who
also wanted to fulfill other desires by working for them, though dispassionately. The
only way at least one person will become the class elite would be through the
cooperation, or subordination, to others. If you don't want to work, go ahead and don't;
it is your will, so be it.

There comes a time when a man's wishes become so blinding from

intersubjectivity, from the observations of others actions, that their potential to conduct
such actions are ignored, and are trampled upon by that man for individual benefit.

Such action is betrayal of your own ability to seek your desires, because you are
not trampled away from fulfilling such desire, yet you trample others from there's;
you're committing a bias rather than following the reasonable consequences of your will
to act: if you will give yourself liberty to act, so shall others, but by infringing their
liberty, you are taking away their ability to give themselves the liberty; the reaching out
for liberty is a group effort, not a privilege for the elite. If you do not give yourself the
liberty to, so shall others be able to do so, and have the liberty to restrict one's own
liberty and have the liberty to not do something. Considering that this liberty is an
intersubjective phenomena, the only instance in which duty to restrict a will is necessary
is in that situation in which the desire of a person is to restrict other people's will (with
the exception of the case just mentioned [in which a man restricts a man's will because it
is a will to restrict another man's will]).
 If you have difficulty understanding what I mean, let me give you an illustration:

X [person]  [“ ” means “acts (to)”] / [“/” means “stop(s)”] P [person]  / D

[person]  do as he wishes without infringing someone else’s right.

Id est… X / P  / D  do as he wishes without infringing someone else’s rights.

In the case illustrated above, X is justified in preventing P from stopping D from

fulfilling his un-infringing desires; so in this case, though, restricting people from acting
out a desire is allowed, as P’s act involves negative force [forcing a person not to do
something] against D.

This is a duty, a course of action needed, to avoid the infringement of other

individual’s wills; it is an act preventing the act which is un-ethical. Thus, by default, the
act of such prevention is not un-ethical, but in fact becomes ethical because of its
purpose of bringing the ethic, preventing the un-ethic. As every man has liberty, this
maxim (which is "No man shall infringe on another man's liberty", as it encompasses all
things that follow from it) determines unethical actions universally.

"No man shall infringe on another man's liberty."

II. Social Functions Therefrom

Since a man's liberty cannot be touched upon in an infringing manner, all actions that
need a mode of co-operation, i.e. two or more men, must contain men that have
consented upon participation in the action. For if they don’t, at least one desire will
indeed be denied from achievement. And therein comes the problem of rights, the
problem that I will resume to call, for practical and recreational purposes, “the problem
of either/or liberty.” In other words, let us say for example your friend wishes to use
your property for his end, however you wish not to let him use his property: you are
preventing his right to use things from being enacted; however, if he were to forcibly
take away your property, he would be taken away your right to control of property.
When it comes to individual actions this issue is not existent, but it arises instead when it
comes to co-operation and interpersonal relations.

Wills that wish to initiate an action are positive wills, and those which are
negative wills are wills that wish to decline or make absent the enactment of a desire
[either from the individual or someone else]. Now, for example, suppose you don’t want
to have sex with someone; there is no need to ask, because the absence is in default
already factual, contrary to the positive will, which since it is not default, must be asked
for or must require an effort to act in order to be achieved. By doing something, you are
in default not doing millions of other things; it’s like you sat around 10 keys on a
keyboard: you hit 1, the others are not hit, you hit 2, the others are not hit; the only effort
applied is to initiate 2; by default, when you initiate 2, all other actions are absent.

So you can only enact a positive will when the partner involved agrees; if the
partner that you chose to be involved has a negative will, you cannot enact your positive
will since the negative will is default and the positive will can only be achieved with
mutual agreement on the action and/or co-operation. Not only that: since as an
individual you can only enact one will which is not logically impossible and/or you are
agreeing to and in which you do not have conflicting wills, the same things happen in
group setting – the group can only enact when in submission to those conditions. Thus
the law of "'No' is the strongest word" is born.

However, you can’t force someone to not do something either (unless it’s the case
previously illustrated). When you force someone to not do something, you are not
letting them seek what they wish to do. For example, you can say you want to eat out of
my bag of chips, but if I say no that’s that. Forcing you not to do something would be if I
didn’t let you try and look for someone else to propose to, or not letting you propose
something at all, or not letting you accept a proposal. If the proposal is only limited to
me (suppose I’m the only one with the bag of chips and you only wish to have my bag of
chips and no other person’s), then you’re just completely screwed. Disfavoring my
taking part in an action or satisfying your will is not coercion, neither is it coercion if it is
a limited will (if it can only be achieved through me); it would be coercion if it was a
general will (it can be achieved through other people) and I do not let you negotiate with
other people besides me.

Proposer's of a contract has the right to deny or give you privileges in regards to
the contract. In other words, the contractor can choose whether he wants you to take
part in the contract. The reasons why he can have already been professed in the above:
the contractor has a positive will and you have a positive will. If the contractor has a
negative will in regards to your positive will (or its mechanistic necessities, id est the
required actions needed to reach a certain higher action that achieves that person's will),
then you cannot be part of the contract. If you have a negative will and the contractor
has a positive will, then the contractor cannot make you part of the contract. If you both
have the same will, then it works smoothly.

A contract between peoples cannot, however, contain the demand that the
person which consented to the contract stay to the contract's rules forever. The reason is
that if someone does not consent to the contract they need not follow the contract
(though you may follow its content in another context and/or situation). Every second
someone spends following the contract, they are consenting to it (unless they're being
forced, but that's beside the point); once they do not consent to it, the law of "No is the
strongest word" is born. However, since they signed the contract, you might say they
still have to follow it despite their lack of consent because it was part of the contract. The
problem with that is that once you say "no", then the contract becomes a form of
coercion. The person who had once consented to the contract must then be released from
the contract.
 To sign a contract, means to consent to its whole body of law and regulations and
such; to lack consent of one of its parts is to break its laws, thus artificial consequences
(consequences set by human minds) are implemented. The punishment must be
negative, because a punishment that enforces a positive will is thus coercion as well.
Thus the punishment by the contractor would be taking away a privilege of the contract
signer or kicking that person out of the contract (or institution if it's an institutional
contract). Punishments such as making someone write something or print something out
for you is enforcing positive will; it would only be acceptable as punishment is the
contract-signer had prior knowledge of such a punishment when signing the contract (if
otherwise, the punishment allowed to be made by the contract-maker can only be of a
loss, unless the contract itself is changed to make a gain [a punishment enforcing a
positive will]). Performing aggression over a person's personal property, if not given to
them by extension ("by extension" meaning that the contractor still owns the object but
extends its use and/or ownership to another person as well; id est sharing the object
which is solely in ownership of the contractor, or of superior ownership of the
contractor) by the contractor, is not an acceptable form of punishment if not by consent
of the contract-signer or the ultimate goal of the contract rather than the punishment
when the contract is not followed. This applies to property such as the body of the
contract signer, his diaries, home, and such. This especially applies when the property
spoken of is given to that person by another contract (though it also applies when
achieved through negotiation as sole-property, id est it also applies when that person
got the object and only owns it himself because of negotiations with previous owners
[buying-selling, etc.]).

III. The Necessitated Measures for Sustenance

If the intention of the violation of your rights is seen prior to or during the
violation, you are allowed to protect yourself. In the case of assault, you are able to
punch someone in the face in order to protect your rights from being violated. A “yes”
can be taken away by force if the “no” utterer is affected by this “yes” directly. I call this
the necessitated inethic because it destroys the right of someone to do what they wish,
thus unethical, but it yet isn’t an unethical when “NO is more powerful than Yes” (as
discussed in Ch.II) is brought into the picture. So I call it inethic. It is a violation of
someone’s rights (unethical exclusively to Maxim of Rights of Man) however it is
justified by, meets the ethical criterion of, the NO Principle (“No” is the strongest word)
since the person is enforcing a positive will on a person with a negative will. Thus it is
ethical despite it violating someone’s rights; the Maxim and the NO Principle can be
combined to make the Maxim of Rights of NoMen.

IV. Property’s Properties

Property is an extension of the self, whether material or immaterial. However,

there can only be physical extensions observable and concrete of the human self in the
reality which we inhabit that can be tangible. This tangibility makes the extension of the
self much more addressable and the violation of the wills incorporated by the extension
of this self unto the object more obvious as it is enacted metaphorically and clearly. In
regards to immaterial extension, as said, there are no immaterial extensions of the self,
only immaterial extensions achieved through the material extensions of the self
perceived by interpretation of the uses, emergences, and interactions of the material
extension(s) of the self.
Therefore, things like the body, which is one of the most essential extensions of
the self, is property of that individual which identifies with it (though it may be said that
it is both the originator of the self and the property of the individual as being an
extension of the self). You may be wondering what “self” is; when I say “self” here, I am
referring to a recognition or representation of identity; thus, I have just said that
property is an extension of the recognition or representation of identity. Property also
thus becomes what it is through simple act of will which may require several other
forms of labor, struggle, and/or negotiation. Thus, something is your property just
because you will it to be your property.

People sometimes have the desire to have an object, to take sole part in the
animation and control of an object, and the power over it (which means, to reiterate,
make an extension of recognition of identity, of self, as the object is being used as both
the means and end to personal desire; it is becoming part of the action of the person and
the achievements and means of achievements). This is how property was born. So
property is property of somebody if it is an extension of that person’s self, i.e. if that
person has labored for it, labors with it, and uses it for their own desires/will and as
means or an end in itself. So, something may or may not only be property to an
individual but can also be property on a collective level. All property, however, always
must start from the individual, not in principle, but in fact, in order to reach a collective
or be divided into pieces of individual property.

People cannot be property of each other because they are all things which exhibit
signs of having wants/desires/wills in themselves. Why? Well, supposing if a person
does not wish to be of your absolute power, then because of the Maxim of Rights of
NoMen, basically, they cannot become property when forced or subjected to do as you
want regardless of their own desires, unlike other objects possible. Another reason is
they cannot be an extension of the self; they are already a distinct self. In order to be an
extension of the self, it must also function as simply something for the satisfaction of that
individual. However, the other person is not functioning solely in this way, but is
actually functioning for himself by pleasing, satisfying, his desires and wants through
the consent of fulfilling the other individual’s desires and wants. So the individual is
putting himself in servitude of himself through the servitude of the other, thus not by
the others extension of self solely functioning for the will of the other. This would be
called “Personal Servitude.”

The only possible way for an individual, or more broadly a desire-agent, to

become property is if they serve their master without regards to their own personal
negative wills that run contrary to the general servitude or certain aspects of it. Since
this is unethical (by conclusion from Ch.II and part of Ch.I), however, the making property of
desire-agents is also thus un-ethical (while Personal Servitude from another desire-agent
is completely ethical).
 Property can be distributed among peoples in a variety of ways, such as
subordinate propertization (when someone makes their property someone else’s but
with rules on the property’s usage by that person; because of the rules, the object is still
an extension of hat individual’s self and is thus still his property, but is also the property
of the other person; however, you have more power over the object than the other
person thus making it the other person’s subproperty; when someone shares their
property, basically, but with rules set by the person that originally had the property that
controls the contract-signers use), personal collectivist propertization (when someone or
a group makes something shared property by several individuals however with no one
individual in control of another’s use of that property, the property is usable by the
individual without affecting other individuals’ wills [hence “personal”]),
impropertization (when someone declines having something as their property and
breaks an object away from being an extension of self), and impersonal collectivist
propertization (when something is not the particular property of anyone but becomes
property of everyone or a group, however the property is not usable by the individual in
the group without affecting another’s will [hence the “impersonal” in the name]).

When you put a copyright, you are through that making your property the
subproperty of others.

Because property is an extension of self, the individual owning the property can
disallow any form of use over the property and allow any form of use over the property
without, of course, breaking the Maxim of Rights of NoMen. So it is unethical to use
someone’s property without their permission to extend it as also owned by you or to
impropertize the object. Doing so is considered stealing, so stealing is also unethical.
Taking someone’s things without their permission is condonable by the will of the other
individual, however if you were informed that you cannot take or use the property, it is
duty that you should be punished.

V. Government as Ultimate Contract

Government is a hierarchy of powers that work to enforce an ultimate contract (a

contract above all contracts which rule out what should or should not be allowed or
regulated in contracts) upon the people. Government is established to protect contracts
and protect people’s rights through itself as contract. The government can only truly
please all the people, though the sections of the people may be in zealous opposition in
this universal pleasing, by letting them please themselves. Government’s role is limited
to the protection of rights and property through law enforcement and is subject to its
own laws. It is also there to fix any distributions of objects made through means
violating individual rights and property. It is also there to try to maintain equal
opportunity. Any government intentionally based on the principles said, and that
adheres to the following will be termed Alexian Libertarian.