—The Anti-Abuse Principle's Immediate Implications—
The Anti-Abuse Principle implies actions that are inherently frustrating to others' interests, and enforce interest subordination, are illegitimate.

This does not provide clearance to inherently frustrate someone else's interests, using them and their interests as a means to some greater good outcome.
The Anti-Abuse Principle also states that actions constituting proportional defense against inherently frustrating (abusive) actions, are legitimate.
 

—Grounding Self-Defense via Estoppel—
To ground the proportionate defense part of the Anti-Abuse Principle, the basis of all hypothetical enforcement of Yoggist principles, we can apply the estoppel argument.

The estoppel argument is a philosophical tool that works as follows. Imagine Bob attacks Alice. Alice defends herself from Bob through similar, proportionate means.
Under Yoggism, Bob then claims Alice's action is illegitimate as it is inherently frustrating against Bob. The problem is, Bob's claim is self-contradictory with the very position that led to his situation in the first place.

For Bob to claim Alice's action is illegitimate, is a self-contradiction as his own action earlier was illegitimate by his own logic.
 

—Grounding Self-Defense via the Action Spectrum—
For Bob to claim Alice's action is illegitimate, is also directly impossible because of Justification Ethics' implied action spectrum.

In-order to define a particular action as inherently frustrating and uniquely unjustified against another action, requires a recognition of the distinction between inaction and action in a given situation, or more specifically recognize the non-actor and the true actor.

To solve a conflict, one must imply the action spectrum; the idea that different actions have differing justificatory burden relative to how much interference they give.
Now imagine someone going out of their way to starve themselves. Is this inaction? True inaction may not even exist, as explained in Inherent Interest Theory, as purposefully doing nothing is to starve oneself to death, which is ultimately an action requiring you to resist your own body.

As such, an action of murder is definitely an action, while an action of self-defense actually has less of a justificatory burden in this sense because someone refusing to defend themselves is not inaction but an unnatural and highly invasive action upon and against oneself, requiring the intense resistance against one's own body telling them to fight.

In the situation where Bob is attacking Alice, Alice's interest in self-defense is less inherently frustrating than Bob's interest in murder, while Bob's interest and action is definitively unjustifiable, while also Alice acting on self-defense is less of an inherent frustration and less interferring than Bob's actions.
Thus, Alice is the one in the right.


—Lethal Retaliation—
If someone breaks into your house and tries to destroy all of your stuff and then tries to burn down your house, is lethal force justified to defend what is yours?

The answer is proportionate force is justifiable. If lethal force becomes proportionate, then it is justifiable. It can be argued that the transgressor could tell you explicitly, "You can leave, I won't stop you. If you try to stop me from burning down your house though, I will kill you."

If they say this, assuming you know they are being truthful, you now know that any resistance will be met with lethal force by them. Since force against them to some degree is already justifiable defense of your interests, if they turn to lethal force in retaliation, then since that lethal force is unjustifiable this situation becomes the same as one where they used lethal force from the beginning.

For this reason, since them using lethal force is foreseeable anyway, it is thus justifiable for you to engage in lethal force before they do. If you have reasonable foresight that they will use lethal force if threatened in any way, then you have a right to cut to the chase, since your interference with them is already justifiable.
This logic is also consistent with the estoppel and action spectrum arguments.
A right to the use of defensive lethal force, when proportionate, is guaranteed.
 

—Proportionate Defense is based on Necessity—
Someone may argue it is disproportionate to enforce action against inherent frustration that does not violate bodily autonomy, for example. Imagine someone is underpaying workers or discriminating in hiring and service unjustifiably, enforcing regulations and civil rights statutes to stop them is disproportionate force because you are using force against someone who isn't, that is a fundamental difference between categories of harm and is thus disproportionate.

This standard of proportionality is the idea that force is only proportional if the force is at the same level, same category of harm, of what injustice is being thwarted.
This standard immediately breaks, because if there is a disabled person stuck in a wheelchair and all they have is a gun, they may be unable to defend themselves or their property without going from yelling to full on lethal force. By the category of harm logic, they may as well not own their property since jumping to lethal force is "disproportionate".

Justification Ethics solves this problem. Since all harm becomes subcategories of inherent interest frustration, there is no "category claim" that can be made because these categories simply don't exist in the way they've been explained.

Imagine being slapped in the face vs. being fired from your job for no reason. Both are unjustifiable given Justification Ethics and an appeal to the value of interests, yet being fired from your job may be much worse than simply being slapped in the face. Yet, in terms of harm categories, being slapped in the face is a direct violation of bodily autonomy, while being fired is not.

This grants a form of proportionality based in the necessity of the use of force, and here even Libertarians will agree. The disabled person owns their property, and all that is necessary to enforce what is right is permitted.
Thus, enforcement of regulations against unfair treatment, discrimination, and other non-violent yet anti-interest abusive activity is actually justifiable under Justification Ethics.

Following this reasoning we can craft the following definitions and the defense side of the Anti-Abuse Principle.

 

—Definitions—
Interest - What a sentient being's behavior tends towards; sentient preferences.
Interest Fulfillment - A being's interest being fulfilled or their preferences respected.
Interest Frustration - The violation or contradiction of a being's interest.

Good - An action that is interest fulfilling and is not inherently frustrating to any interests.
Right - An action that is interest fulfilling, and not inherently frustrating with the exception of if it constitutes defense against abuse (unjustified action).
Judgeable - An action that results in the minimally inconsistent outcome relative to Interests as a value, measured by whether the action is 'right' interest-wise, or if the action is rationally integral to the structures that preserve interest fulfillment fundamentally.

Bad - An action that is frustrating to interests while any fulfillment is limited to inherently frustrating interests.
Evil - An action that is inherently frustrating to interests and is frustrating to the very structures that preserve interest fulfillment.

Moral - An action that is overall respectful towards others' interests.
Immoral - An action that is overall disrespectful towards others' interests.
Ethical - An action consistent with the Anti-Abuse Principle.
Unethical - An action inconsistent with the AAP.
Judgeable - An action consistent with the Anti-Abuse Principle or existentially protective in the sense of protecting the structure of interests themselves.
Entirely Unjustifiable - An action inconsistent with the AAP while being immoral, and not being existentially protective, or being diminishing to the structure of interests.


—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.