—The Anti-Abuse Principle (AAP)—
Actions that are intrinsically frustrating to another's non-abusive fulfillment of interests, or inherently subordinate another's interests, constitute abuse, and are thus illegitimate.
Actions that proportionately defend against abuse, or inhibit conduct that is inherently frustrating of interests, are legitimate insofar as they constitute self-defense.

This principle can be stated in essence in a simple sentence:
"Acts that intrinsically frustrate and subordinate others' interests, are illegitimate. Defense of interests is the imperative."

 

​

—The Abuse of the Spook (Anti-Spook Doctrine)—
Part of the philosophy of Max Stirner was that arbitrary principles such as religious and moral principles, as well as reason itself, could become spooks against ones self-interest.

If we are to derive a framework that is universal though, we can think of some actions as spooks and some as not, we can think of actions as spooks based on if they are only justifiable by a spook.

Hence, some actions including abuse of authority, discrimination, or acts of violence, are spooks. In this view, Yoggism becomes the anti-spook, the spook against spooks as justifier; with Yoggism itself as the only justified spook through reason itself, a "spook to end all spooks".

Some actions function as a 'spook' against the fulfillment of interests, such actions can be defined as intrinsically frustrating actions that inherently subordinate another's interests.
These actions constitute abuse, norms based on such actions represent spooks of the mind against interests, and are thus the true enemy of both individual freedom and rational ethics.

Therefore, actions that constitute inherent frustration through coercive frustration or subordination of another's interests, cannot be justified by any metric and are thus illegitimate.

 

—What We Know—
From Justification Ethics, is proven that actions inherently frustrating to others' interests cannot be justified.
From Inherent Interest Theory, is proven the action spectrum that can be used to measure frustrating actions against each-other.

Different actions have differing justificatory burdens based on how interferring they are. From here we can define a binary distinction of when a certain action is unjustifiable based on it being frustrating to interests in a way intrinsic to the content of the action itself, in relation to another action or non-acting person.
 

—Interest Abuse—
We can define a type of conduct actions can constitute, this conduct is interest abuse, and we can define it in terms of interest misalignment as granted by the previous information.

Similar to the philosophy by Immanuel Kant, which states that one should treat other people never as a mere means but rather as an end in themselves, what will be called the enforcement of interest misalignment is fundamental to ethical reasoning based on similar application.

Actions that inherently frustrate in a way unjustifiable, can be thought of as enforcing interest misalignment overall, which is what causes the unjustifiability as interest misalignment is the very thing preventing the derivation of normative claims to an agent as per Justification Ethics.

This is the definition of what will be coined "Interest Abuse":
If an action inherently results in frustration of interests, through enforcement of interest misalignment, whereas in a way intrinsic to the content of the action itself, it frustrates against other interests that themselves are NOT frustrating as intrinsically, and the action does not function as defense against inherently frustrating conduct, constitutes abuse.
Such abuse cannot be justified.
 

—Property Rights Explained—
To steal from another person without justifiable cause is a frustration of their interests, in a way intrinsic to the action itself. This is inherent frustration at work, and an active enforcement of your misaligned interests.

This is the case as long as the property claim does not itself represent an unjustifiable action against others, such as with hoarding land, as land is finite at least locally and taking up land prevents others from using an object that already existed prior. Personal possessions on the other hand do not do this, creating something new does not stop others from doing anything they could prior to the new creation, and thus does not and can not constitute an inherent frustration.

The exception is if people already have access to some good and then access is blocked off or otherwise limited, which is an action that frustrates their interests directly; or if access is unjustifiably limited from the start to the benefit of the property holder.

This is captured by the concept of Interest Entanglement of Inherent Interest Theory, as creating or otherwise laboring to gather property entangles your interests in that property such that the loss of it constitutes an active frustration against your interests in the property and your ability to fulfill your interests related to the property.
 

—Bodily Autonomy Explained—
Bodily Autonomy works the same way. An attack upon your body and your ability to fulfill interests pertaining directly to your body is an inherent frustration for the same reasons.

For cases where one person's body may rely upon another, the action spectrum is to be applied, implying an active user of a body may not overrule such body's owner, as usage of a person's body constitutes an action that may be against the interests of the person and thus may be unjustifiable.

This action, whether intentional or not, necessarily justifies self-defense against the actor by the person being acted against, as much as is necessary to prevent the action.
 

—Plagiarism Ethics—
Plagiarism is unethical by similar grounds. Relying on another's work may frustrate the interests of the creator of the work, claiming another's work as your own is a clearer case.

Similar to land use though, the action of blocking the use of a specific creative work can either represent an unjustifiable action against those who are already users of the work or sometimes block those who already had the ability to use the work but now cannot, such as in the case of patents blocking use of inventions.
 

—Wage Slavery—
Unjustifiable actions against others that enforce interest misalignment are illegitimate. As such unfair treatment in the workplace and many negative consequences of wage labor are rendered illegitimate actions against the employee/worker.

Similar market abuse against workers and consumers, including shareholders taking precedence over workers and consumers in publicly traded companies, similarly constitutes abuse.
The ethical and rational imperative is to grant ownership with those whose interests are most entangled with the firm, to give workers and consumers a real stake and voice in the means of production.
 

​

—The True Consent Ethic—
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 accepting an agreement, but you also ought to 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.
Approval of all parts of an agreement is the signifier of interest alignment, which makes sense as enforcement of interest misalignment is unjustifiable.

It is for this reason that Consent is not a mere construct but rather the measure of justification. 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 at work.
 

​

—The AAP and applications of Max Stirner's Philosophy—
Through this kind of reasoning around ethics, can be applied a principle derived from the logical implications of Normative Justification and the ranking of Actions: The Anti-Abuse Principle.

Along with this principle can be obtained the recognition of the Abuse of the Spook, or the AS Recognition. As per Max Stirner's Egoism, a 'spook' is a concept that constitutes an abstraction meant to push you away from your own self-interest and instead towards an arbitrary principle.

Yoggism can be thought of as a "spook to end all spooks", and to define a rule against creating spooks upon others, is the kind of rule a "Union of Egoists", the hypothetical social organizing envisioned by Max Stirner, advocates for.

This rule is essentially exactly what the Anti-Abuse Principle is.
This makes Yoggism particularly justifiable by Egoist standards, compared with other normative frameworks. Yoggism itself is the spook to end all spooks, the Anti-Spook.
 

—Yoggism is the Anti-Spook by this recognition—
As such, the recognition of this implies some actions can be thought of as spooks against the fulfillment of interests, as only justifiable from abstractions against self-interest.
Yoggism is the one anti-spook justifiable from the abstraction of reason and from the idea that such spooks are normatively bad.
 

—Refutating Egoism - The Igism Dilemma—
Max Stirner himself originally classified reason as a spook if it is taken as authoritative above one's own self-interest, but if we disregard reason as having such authority then we forfeit the argumentative, logical, and normative force of our own objection itself.

An absurd and entirely arbitrary principle, like Igism, the philosophy that everyone should say 'Ig' once a day and encourage others to do the same, and use a State to indoctrinate everyone into Igism, becomes on equal footing with Egoism.

To maintain the Egoist objection is to appeal to Rational Egoism, which falls into the trap where it is impossible to normatively justify Egoism as a system of ethics in a way others are rationally required to accept. To appeal to rationality in this way is also to appeal to the assumption that beliefs hold with them a justificatory burden, and as actions are guided by specific kinds of such beliefs, actions imply an inherited justificatory burden.
This opens the door to Justification Ethics, and then collapses into the Anti-Abuse Principle again.