Question of Legitimacy

Legitimacy plays a major role in the determination of ethics, morality and rights. It is a method of knowing who is right/innocent in a certain situation. For example, in a situation where property is violated, the person who owns the property has legitimate authority (because of his rights) and the person violating it does not. The logical conclusion would be that the violator is guilty and should be punished. This sounds like a nice arrangement, but much like in their economic arguments, so-called legitimacists make up small scale situations and expect that this same situation can work as well with 6 billion people across the world as it does with 2 neighbours across the street. Such people include myself, communists, capitalists, socialists, democrats, constitutionalists, anarchists, and the list goes on. Especially democrats, but that is a story for another paragraph.

Legitimacy leads to a situation I call "The tragic mating between subjectivity and objectivity"; in this situation, either something made to find objective truths gives in to subjective opinions, or something that is subjective is used to find objective truths, or both. This is not to say that subjectivism is a bad thing in any way. Legitimacy is a fine example of this 'tragic mating': it gives in to subjectivism, and then legitimacists still try to use it to find objective truths. The state, a monopoly on the use of force, is, for instance, legitimate.
The masses project legitimacy onto the state (through being bought, reassured, censored, fooled and threatened) and this leads to anyone fighting against the state to be punished in one way or another. Being bought and reassured are two big factors here; people will always look for reassurance and an easy way to feed themselves, and these are two very easy ways to do it. Drawing conclusions here, when legitimacy is used to structure a human society, it will result in people seeking more security, paying that, which may now seem useless, but later we crave for it: our own freedom. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -Ben Franklin said it right.

Legitimacy leads to democracy; one can see this, as when legitimacy is projected onto some authority, those who challenge that authority will likely be met with violent force by the people who view it as legitimate. Democracy (specifically majoritarian democracy) works in a similar way, where a simple majority wanting something can force its will on any minority. This such democracy leads to oligarchy, which leads to plutocracy, which leads to fascism. By logical expansion, it can be said that legitimacy is not a reliable method of structuring society and/or basing one's philosophy on, as it boils down to nothning but mob rule. What is worse, in this mob rule, the mob isn't even ruling for its own benefit.

What, then, is a more reliable method? Reciprocalism is its name! Reciprocalism merely says that 'what goes around comes around'. That is, one person has the full right to do to another, as that specific other has attempted to do to said person. No legitimacy, no authority, full justice and full liberty. There is no 'I am right, you are wrong', for right and wrong cannot be known to us. There is 'he did it to me, I can do it to him'. Reciprocalism is the best and most reliable way to find objective truths, if any exist at all.

Rights

There are five inalienable natural rights that apply to at least the human species. The rights, in order of priority are:

1. The right to react

"Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi." -Newton's 3rd law.

Using newton's third law of reciprocal actions and the universal fact that all living beings act and have reactions to an act, one can prove the naturality of one's right to do to another as that specific other has done to him/her. The reasons behind that other's actions, and whether he is successful do not matter at all. Whether it is to protect property or to damage it, when one person uses force against another, that other will have the full right to use equal and proportional force against the initiator.
If someone points a gun at me, I can point a gun at them. If he shoots first and kills me, he is guilty, and while society should not kill him if he does not resist capture (the violation is against me), he certainly should be punished, so long as he/she is proven not to be on the 'self-defense' side of the fight. If I fire my gun, unless I can prove he was going to pull the trigger, I will be the one in trouble. Again, the motives behind the actions do not matter.

2. The right to life and existence

Since one exists, and he is the only one who can sense his own conscience and ego, he has exclusive right to exist and be himself. Hence, nobody, and I do mean nobody, has the right to control another. However, by the first right, if someone attempts to take another's life, then that other (no one else), has the full right to do the same at any time and any place. Back to the point, since no one has the right to control another, no one can decide for another if they will live or not. It is a completely private and individual decision.

3. The right to liberty

One has to ask himself what the function of life in this universe is to actually understand this right completely. What does a cloud of molecules making transfers of electrons (conscience is only electrical impulses in the brain) do that a typical cloud of molecules doesn't? For starters, it exerts forces on itself that make it move where it wants to move. For that to happen, this cloud of molecules must make decisions and occasionally mistakes. It also must have desires. These traits differ between organisms: single cells also make decisions and have desires, however, they are at a more simplistic scale (food, water, mitosis).
From these universal traits shared by all living beings comes the right for individuals to make their own decisions.

4. The right to property

If each sentient being is itself, has a right to react, a right to life and liberty, then it must have exclusive ownership of things it manipulates to preserve itself: food, water, shelter, etc. Because property requires one to abide by another's rules, it is collectivist. Property extends to become an agreement within a group, that is beneficial for all members of that group.
Note that there is no single theory of property that can apply to all types of property, not even a synthesis. Contractual property works best for land ownership and maybe shelter, however, it does not work well for ALL property types. This is true for any and all theories: Rothbardian, Neo-lockean, Proudhonian, and the list goes on. If one looks into these theories, he can see how they might apply well for something, but not everything. Therefore, because objective propertarianism is arbitrary and can result in tyranny, only the people can and have got to, in the words of Brian, "work it out for themselves".

5. The right to pursue happiness

From all the rights derived above, derives the fifth right for one to pursue that which makes him happy. For in life, there is nothing else that has value, but happiness. Simple economics is in fact based on this right. For we subjectively value something by judging how much pleasure it will give now and/or in the future. That pleasure could be anything, from satisfying hunger, to looking good to other people, to euphoria. Therefore, every sentient being has the right to pursue that which brings it comfort and pleasure, so long as that pursuit does not prevent others from doing the same.

Quod erat demonstrandum