—Deriving a Deontological Principle—
From the Absolute Interest Conclusion, given by the derived value of the Fulfillment of Interests, we can derive that to act in alignment with the value of the fulfillment of interests of all sentient beings is utmost rational. This grants us the following Absolute Interest Principle.
 

---Absolute Interest Principle---
The most rational outcome overall, relative to the Absolute Class of all sentient beings, is that which upholds the fulfillment of existent interests of all sentient beings, across all possible reference frames; with priority to existent, rational, Inherent Interests.
Therefore, it is inconsistent and irrational, to act against or in contradiction with this most rational outcome, and it is irrational to act against others rational interests as an end in itself, and to act against the fulfillment of interests on small scales as well; as it is in contradiction with the only coherent rational standards of value.
 

---Bridging Consequentialism and Deontology---
From this principle, we can bridge consequentialism and deontology, and derive a universal deontological principle true in all circumstances that is entirely consistent with the Absolute Interest Conclusion, and thus the AIP as well. To do this in a way that is more versatile, we can uncover how certain actions may subtly constitute interest-frustration.
 

---Interest Alignment and Kantian Ethics---
A major part of Kantian Ethics, the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, is the idea that people should be treated as an end in themselves and never merely as a means.

This idea’s usefulness can be derived if we value people’s interests. If someone is treated as a means to someone else’s end, that means whatever actions are done are not done in respect to the person’s interests.

 

Said another way, their interests are not respected. This violates the Absolute Interest Principle directly, as the respect of people’s interests is necessary to ensure people’s interests are not simply ignored, or treated with a bare minimum of care.

To act in a way that cannot be rationally justified relative to the other person's interests or preferences, is fundamentally contradictory with the AIP.

We can expand upon this into a broader idea of Interest Alignment, where interactions and contracts between people are only truly ethical if the people involved have aligned interests; ensuring they are all mutually benefiting from the contract.

 

It is in this way that Interest Alignment to a reasonable extent, explains the value of Consent, as it can only be achieved through enthusiastic, informed consent among the parties involved.
 

---Consent---
Consent is a continuous, preferably enthusiastic, explicit, and relevantly-informed, acceptance of an agreement, contract, or activity.

Preferably enthusiastic here means you not only should have an interest in signing a contract, or accepting an agreement, but you also ought to enthusiastically approve of each term of the contract, every part or at least the most important parts of the agreement or activity.

Relevantly-informed means that you know what you are agreeing to and have the knowledge required, to a reasonable and relevant extent, to meaningfully judge the agreement's outcomes relative to your own interests.

The reason these things are valuable, the reason consent is a useful 'construct' at all, if it can even be denegrated to a mere construct, is because it is necessary to ensure interactions between people respect their interests. If people's interests are not aligned at all, I.E. they are all acting in respect to only their own individual interests, then they will end up frustrating against each-others interests. Relative to interests as a value, this is contradictory with the idea that interests are meaningful at all.

It is for this reason that Consent, even if it is defined as a mere construct, is surely the most valuable, universal, and important construct. This is also the reason why behaviors that function off of misaligned interests, that may result in frustration for one side of a deal, can be so dangerous to the meaning of consent and interests itself. This, is the definition of Abuse.
 

---Rational Interests take priority over Irrational Interests---
Four ruffians break into your house, what the devil? As you grab your powdered wig and Kentucky rifle, blow a golfball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw your pistol on the second man, misses him entirely because it's smoothbore, and have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grapeshot, "Tally ho, lads!" The grapeshot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up.

Self-defense is rationally justifiable, as your defense of yourself is an inherent and rational interest relative to your own self-interest, and their interest in killing or seriously hurting you is irrational as it is not inherent and is instead arbitrary. You are contradicting their interests in not being killed, but they are contradicting the interest of not being killed as well. You are merely defending yourself while defending rationality itself.

It is justifiable as long as it is rational to act according to an inherent and non-arbitrary interest in contradiction with the relevant interests of an irrational actor, while the irrational actor contradicts their own relevant interests.

This begs the question of what qualifies as consistent? Consistent relative to what, all sentient beings' interests? Which interests must be the most inherent and rational interests, as clearly it is irrational to act relative to the standard that 1+1=3, even if everybody has an interest in asserting that. The most rational standard thus must be based on the most inherent and rational interests, and the protection of them.

Murderers valuing their own lives is an irrational, contradictory interest. It is an interest with some value, but of less value than the interest of someone acting otherwise entirely consistently with the value of interests and/or the AIP.

Therefore: Killing ruffians in self-defense is rationally justifiable because your rational inherent interests are of more value than the contradictory interests of the ruffians, and thus your interests are more relevant to whatever utmost rational standard of value selected.
This comes from the recognition that rational interests take priority over irrational interests.
 

Based on these arguments and the AIP, irrational frustration can be said to involve acting in a way that is not aligned with the rational interests of others. Acting in alignment with rational interests, is thus utmost rational, and defense of those rational interests against rationality is also itself rational.

Note as well that inherently interest-frustrating conduct is measured according to the standard that such conduct results in interest-frustrating by way of either interest misalignment, or otherwise, in most circumstances regardless of external factors to a reasonable extent, by the definition of "inherent harms".
With these considerations, can be crafted the following principle of Yogg Law:


—The Anti-Abuse Principle (AAP)—
Actions that constitute interference with another's non-abusive fulfillment of their own rational and non-contradictory interests, are illegitimate.
Actions that result in the frustration of interests, through overall frustration by misalignment of interests between parties, or due to conduct that is inherently interest-frustrating, are irrational and self-contradictory, constitute ‘abuse’, and are thus illegitimate.
Actions that prevent abuse, or inhibit otherwise interest-frustrating conduct; including conduct that is a product of irrational interest misalignment between parties, and conduct that is inherently irrationally frustrating; are legitimate as they constitute resistance to abuse.


This principle can be stated in essence in a simple sentence:
"Do what you want, unless it stops others from doing what they want, unless what they want is irrational and inherently harmful to other's interests; in which case defend rational interests."