What is objective law?

 Objective law, according to Ayn Rand, is a system of rules that is based on reality and reason, designed to protect individual rights. It is grounded in the recognition of the primacy of existence and the necessity of adherence to objective reality. Objective law is not arbitrary; it is derived from the facts of reality and the nature of man as a rational being who must act according to his own judgment in order to live.

The purpose of objective law is to provide a framework within which individuals can interact peacefully and productively, ensuring that each person has the freedom to pursue their own values without interference from others. This includes the protection of individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. 

In an objective legal system, laws are clear, consistent, and based on objective principles. They are not subject to the whims of rulers or the majority but are rooted in the recognition of objective reality and the requirements of human survival and flourishing. This means that laws must be understandable, stable, and uniformly applicable to all individuals, ensuring that justice is not a matter of subjective interpretation but of objective application.

The enforcement of objective law requires a limited government whose sole function is to protect individual rights by banning the initiation of force and fraud. This is achieved through the establishment of a system of courts, police, and military to adjudicate disputes, enforce contracts, and defend against external threats.

In essence, objective law is the application of rational principles to the governance of human interactions, ensuring that each person can live as a free and independent being. It rejects the notion of rule by decree or the imposition of collective will, upholding instead the sovereignty of the individual and the sanctity of individual rights [1][2][3][4][5][6].

By adhering to objective law, a society can achieve a harmonious and just order where individuals are free to think, act, and trade according to their own rational self-interest, leading to progress, prosperity, and human flourishing.

Sources:

1 Understanding Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff. Edited by Michael S. Berliner

2 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand

3 Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff

4 Ayn Rand Lexicon by Harry Binswanger

5 the Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand

6 the Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand

in addition here is the objective definition of objective law:

Objective definition of objective law:

To find an objective definition of "objective law" for a rational society:

1. Reduce the concept to its perceptual level roots and basic fundamental axioms:

Perceptual level roots:

Laws - Perceived system of rules/principles governing behavior in a society

• Objectivity - Perception that something is mind-independent and factual reality
• 
  

Basic axioms:

• Existence exists (Reality exists as an objective absolute)
• Consciousness is conscious identification of existence (Rational beings can identify and understand reality)
• A=A (Principle of Identity - Things are what they are, and remain so unless acted upon to make them other than what they are)
• 
  

2. Additional intermediate steps/principles:

• A rational society is one based on reason, which requires adherence to reality
• Laws are a way to codify principles for collective governance
• For laws to be truly objective, they must be based on facts of reality, not whims or prejudices
• 
  

3. Measurable essential characteristics:

• Rational - Based on reason and adherence to facts, not feelings/biases
• Universal - Applicable universally to all members of the society
• Logically coherent - Free from contradictions with reality
• Binding - Having real force and consequences for violations

4. Definition: An objective law for a rational society is a rationally-derived, binding principle or system of rules that is based strictly on the factual requirements of human nature and reality, applied universally without contradiction, bias or subjectivism.

Genus: System of laws/rules for society
Differentia: Derived by reason from reality, universally applied without bias

This meets the criteria for an objective definition by:

1. Tying the concept directly to perceptual reality and valid axioms
2. Deriving it logically from intermediate objective principles
3. Specifying measurable essential characteristics
4. Defining it in terms of essential characteristics derived from reality
5. 
   

It is an objective definition to the extent that current knowledge aligns with reality. As knowledge of reality expands, the definition may need to be refined, but it establishes an objective grounding and points the way for a rational legal system.

To further expand on what makes an objective law in a rational society:

Additional Perceptual Roots:

Human nature - The inescapable biological and psychological facts about human beings as a species

Society - Humans living together in an organized community

Rights - The moral principles defining the proper boundaries and freedoms individuals have

Additional Axioms:

Causality - For any event, there are preceding causes

Ethics is objective - There is a rational, fact-based ethics that derives from human nature

Individual rights are not a gift from society, but are inherent requirements of human survival

Additional Intermediate Principles:

Laws must align with the objective requirements of human survival and flourishing

Laws must protect the individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness

Laws should codify and enforce the ethical principle of non-initiation of force

Additional Essential Characteristics:

Secular - Not based on religious dogma, but reason and observable reality

Delimiting powers - Explicitly limiting and defining government powers

Negative in nature - Prohibiting initiation of force rather than granting entitlements

Equally applied - Not treating any group specially by identity politics principles

• 
  

Revised Definition: An objective law in a rational society is a secularly-derived, logically coherent, negative principle that delimits government powers, protects individual rights, is equally applied to all citizens, and aligns with the factual requirements of human nature and ethics for human beings to survive and flourish.

This revised definition meets the criteria of grounding the concept in observable reality, building up from valid axioms, deriving it through reason, and specifying essential measurable characteristics. It makes the law's objectivity depend on it conforming to the objective facts about what reality and human nature require for humans to live and thrive.

By making the definition's validity dependent on alignment with empirical facts about reality and human nature as currently understood, it remains open to potential revision as knowledge expands. But it provides an objective framework for evaluating laws based on facts rather than mere assertion or opinion.

Here are some additional considerations for an objective definition of law in a rational society:

Additional Perceptual Roots:

• Scarcity of resources - The fact that human requirements exceed what is immediately available
• Conflict of interests - Clashing desires/goals between individuals that require adjudication
• Value hierarchies - Observable fact that humans act to gain values over disvalues

Additional Axioms:

• Reason is humanity's basic means of survival
• Principles of logic (non-contradiction, identity, excluded middle)
• The objective theory of rights - Rights are moral principles defining proper boundaries

Additional Intermediate Principles:

• Laws must reconcile conflicts over scarce resources objectively
• Laws should enable production and trade to increase availability of values
• Use of force is only justly retaliatory, not pre-emptive

Additional Essential Characteristics:

• Objectively justifiable - Having a reality-based rationale, not arbitrary
• Promoting virtue - Incentivizing rationality, production, justice
• Evolving as knowledge grows - Amenable to change as facts are updated
• Transparent due process - Clear, public rules applied equally

Revised Definition: An objective law in a rational society is a secularly-derived, logically coherent, negative principle that delimits government powers, protects individual rights, incentivizes the use of reason and production of values, resolves conflicts over scarce resources objectively based on facts about human nature, has a transparent and equally-applied process, and evolves rationally as knowledge of reality expands.

This definition further ties the objectivity of laws to facts about the nature of resources, interests, values, and human flourishing. It specifies additional essential characteristics laws must have, like incentivizing rationality/production and transparent due process.

By grounding the definition in a wider base of observable facts about reality, deriving it through reason from broader philosophical axioms, and encompassing more essential requirements, this aims to make the definition more complete and objective within the context of current knowledge.

Of course, as our understanding of reality grows through science and philosophy, even this revised definition may need to be updated. But it provides a strong, reality-based framework for an objective legal system in a rational society.

Here are some additional considerations to further strengthen and expand the objective definition of law for a rational society:

Additional Perceptual Roots:

• Separation of mind and body - Consciousness is an attribute of the physical brain
• Demonstrable regularities - Observable patterns and laws in nature
• Existence of strangers - Humans must interact and adjudicate with non-intimates

Additional Axioms:

• Consciousness has no primordial consciousness (it arises from the brain)
• Nature is governed by identifiable laws
• Volitional consciousness - Humans have free will and ability to choose

Additional Intermediate Principles:

• Laws cannot conflict with the mind/body relationship or laws of nature
• Laws must enable peaceful interaction between strangers via objective rules
• Due process must respect the volitional capacity of human consciousness

Additional Essential Characteristics:

• Naturalistic - Conforming to the observable laws and regularities of nature
• Enabling volitional adherence - Not contradicting free will of citizens
• Severable - Ability to nullify invalid portions without voiding the whole
• Generalizable - Applying the same objective principles universally

Revised Definition: An objective law in a rational society is a secularly-derived, logically coherent, negative principle that delimits government powers via a transparent and due process respecting human volition. It protects individual rights, incentivizes rationality/production, resolves conflicts objectively based on demonstrable facts about reality and human nature, evolves through reason as knowledge expands, and does not violate the mind/body relationship, nature's laws, or the requirements of a society of strangers to interact peacefully according to generalizable rules, which are enabled for volitional adherence and are severable if invalid portions are identified.

This more comprehensive definition:

1. Roots it in additional key facts about the metaphysical relationship of mind and body, the laws of nature, free will, and interactions between strangers.

2. Derives it from broader philosophical axioms about the primacy of existence, identity of consciousness, and human volition.

3. Incorporates intermediate principles ensuring laws do not contradict the realities of nature, minds, and peaceful cooperation between strangers.

4. Specifies additional essential characteristics like naturalism, volitional enablement, severability, and generalizability.

By systematically grounding it in a wider base of observable facts, deriving it through reason from foundational philosophical axioms, and specifying an expansive set of essential objective criteria, this definition aims to provide a robust, comprehensive, and maximally reality-rooted framework for truly objective laws in a rational society.

Of course, the entire definition rests on the respective bases of facts, axioms, and derived principles being complete and fully aligned with reality as it actually is. To the extent that any part deviates from or omits crucial aspects of reality, the definition would require corresponding adjustments.

criteria 

Here are the key criteria that a law must meet in order to qualify as a valid unit/instance of the objective concept "objective law" in a rational society:

1. Derived from Reason and Observable Reality
   The law must be derived through the use of reason (adhering to the principles of logic like non-contradiction, identity, etc.) from observable facts about reality, human nature, and what enables human flourishing. It cannot be based on mere whims, biases, revealed dogma, or anything contradicting empirical observation and rational inquiry.

2. 
   

3. Grounded in Objective Philosophy
   The law must be grounded in and logically deduced from objective philosophical axioms/principles, such as:

• Existence exists independent of consciousness (Primacy of Existence)
• Consciousness arises from the brain (Mind/Body relationship)
• A=A (Principle of Identity)
• Causality (Cause and effect relationship)
• The objective theory of rights (Individual rights as societal prerequisites)

3. Tied to Perceptual Realities
   The law must find its roots in and not contradict the perceptual data provided by our senses, such as:

• The senses themselves (sight, hearing, touch, etc.)
• Properties of the physical world (matter, energy, space, time)
• Attributes of human beings (biology, consciousness, volition)
• Facts about society (scarcity, conflicts of interest, division of labor)

4. Logically Coherent System
   The law must be logically derived as part of a fully integrated system of laws, free from contradictions within itself or with other established parts of the system. It cannot violate or contradict other objectively valid laws or principles.

5. 
   

6. Protective of Individual Rights
   The law must protect and delimit the objective theory of rights - the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It cannot legitimize or enable the initiation of force against any individual's rights.

7. 
   

8. Universal Applicability
   The law must state a general, abstract principle that applies equally and universally to all individuals, without regard to any specific individuals or demographic criteria. It cannot treat people unequally by identity traits.

9. 
   

10. Enabling of Rationality/Production
    The law must incentivize and enable the use of reason and production/trade to meet human life requirements, rather than obstructing or disincentivizing these. It cannot undercut the motives for rationality/productivity.

11. 
    

12. Objective Justification and Due Process
    The law must have an objectively demonstrable justification and rationale tied to facts about reality. Its implementation must follow transparent, defined processes respecting individual volition.

13. 
    

14. Harmony with Nature's Laws
    The law cannot contradict or attempt to revoke the inalterable laws of nature that exist and operate independent of human consciousness, such as laws of physics, chemistry, etc.

15. 
    

16. Amenability to Expansion of Knowledge
    The law's justification and basis must remain open to potential revision or nullification as scientific and philosophical knowledge of reality expands. It cannot be held as irretrievable dogma immune to new evidence.

If a proposed law or principle meets all of these criteria, derived systematically from observable reality, valid philosophical axioms, logic, and the requirements of human flourishing, it can be considered a valid instantiation of the objective concept "objective law" in a rational society. Any law failing to meet one or more of these criteria would be considered subjective, contradicting the objective definition.

Here are some examples that could qualify as objective laws in a rational society, based on the criteria outlined:

1. Prohibition of Initiatory Force
   "No individual or group has the right to initiate force or fraud against any other individual or their justly acquired property."

• Derivation from reason and observation: Initiation of force is objectively destructive to human life and negates the requirements for sustaining a society of productive, volitional beings.

• Grounding in objective philosophy: Derived from the axioms of human volition, the objective theory of individual rights, ethical egoism, and the non-contradiction of force with voluntary cooperation.

• Tied to perceptual roots: Observable requirements for human cooperation and productive activities, involuntary physical harm/theft as contradictions of rational pursuits.

• Logically coherent: Consistent with prohibitions on murder, assault, theft, etc. Doesn't contradict other rights/laws.

• Universal applicability: Applies equally without demographic exceptions.

2. Freedom of Speech
   "The government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or press of any individual."

• Derivation: Free flow of ideas is a means of knowledge production and error-correction necessary for rational thought and human flourishing.

• Objective philosophy: Based on the metaphysical primacy of existence, objective theory of concepts, importance of reason for survival.

• Perceptual: Observable value and reliance on conceptual communication for knowledge accumulation.

• Coherent: Doesn't violate rights framework, facilitates productive discourse.

• Universal: Doesn't discriminate, applies to all speech/press.

3. Property Rights
   "Every individual has the right to justly acquire, use, and dispose of private property, defined objectively by the application of one's mind and effort to natural resources."

• Derivation: Logically required for reaping benefits of productive effort and economic planning.

• Philosophy: Based on the scarcity of nature, rational self-interest, homesteading theory.

• Perceptual: Observable need to apply effort to reshape resources to gain values.

• Coherent: Enables other rights, follows from ownership of one's capacities.

• Universal: Applies to all through same objective criteria of application of effort.

4. Due Process
   "No individual shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without having the right to a fair, speedy, public trial by an objective, unbiased panel following defined rules of transparent procedure and evidence."

• Derivation: Guards against arbitrary impingement of rights without objectively validatable cause.

• Philosophy: Based on Objectivity, individual sovereignty over mind/body.

• Perceptual: Need for objective rules to settle disputes over alleged transgressions.

• Coherent: Critical legal safeguard integrated with other civil protections.

• Universal: Equally afforded to any accused individual without exception.

These are just some examples, but they illustrate how one could derive objective laws systematically from observation, reason, objective philosophy, and the requirements of human flourishing, while meeting the key criteria outlined. The objectivity rests on 1) Rigorous logical derivation from observable facts and 2) Not contradicting the demonstrable requirements of human life and society.

Here are some additional examples that could potentially qualify as objective laws in a rational society:

1. Freedom of Contract
   "Any voluntary agreement between mentally competent adults, made without coercion or fraud, shall be legally binding and its terms enforced, provided it does not involve delegating responsibility for initiating force."

• Grounded in the philosophy of individual rights, volition, and non-initiation of force as ethical axioms.
• Recognizes observable human capacity to make binding commitments through reason and choice.
• Logically derived from the need for confidence in agreed exchanges to enable productive activity and cooperation.
• Universally applied without regard to demographics, only the objective criteria of mental competence and non-coercion.
• Harmonizes with property rights, contract law facilitates trade and economic development.

2. Freedom of Religion
   "The government shall make no law respecting the establishment of any religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof for any individual or group, provided religious practices don't violate the rights of non-participants."

• Based on the philosophical axiom that individuals must be free to use reason to form their own metaphysical conclusions.
• Observationally, diversity of religious beliefs is an undeniable human reality requiring tolerance.
• Coherent with 1st Amendment speech protections and pluralistic society of diverse viewpoints.
• Applied universally without favoring or discriminating against any specific religion.
• Enables individuals to make their own existence-value judgments through reason.

3. Equal Protection Under the Law
   "All individuals shall be afforded equal protection and due process under the law, with no special privileges or exceptions made for any demographic identities."

• Derived from human beings' common biological nature as a species and the equal status of their individual minds.
• Based on objective reality that there are no metaphysical differences between people based on ethnicity, gender, etc.
• Logically required for uniform application of rights and objective conflict-resolution.
• Contradicts tribal biases but operationally provides a neutral system benefiting all.
• Criterial attributes like age/competence are permissible due to objective differences.

4. Environmental Protections
   "Objective scientific standards shall be maintained to safeguard environmental conditions necessary for human health and sustainability of economic activity derived from nature."

• Recognizing humans' requirements for extracting values from the natural world to survive and pursue happiness.
• Based on ecology's identification of systemic planetary conditions beneficial or detrimental to those requirements.
• Coherent with property rights framework - protecting shared environmental property from encroachment.
• Universally benefits all by regulating public goods for collective provision of clean resources.
• Amenable to evolving with scientific understanding of ecological dynamics and resource impact.

These examples further illustrate how one could derive objective laws by integrating observable data about reality, logical principles, objective ethical axioms, and the demonstrable requirements for human flourishing in society. The objectivity stems from their basis in empirical facts and deductive validity, not wishes or arbitrary assertions.

Analysis of proposed laws/policies:

Let's analyze the objectivity of those proposed laws/policies one by one:

Egalitarianism:
This principle of enforcing economic or social equality of outcome among individuals would violate several key criteria for an objective law:

• Not derived from observable facts about reality, but a subjective moral premise that all people deserve equal results regardless of their choices/efforts.
• Contradicts the observable fact that individuals have differing attributes, talents, values, and make different choices impacting their outcomes.
• Violates the objective ethical principles of individual rights by forcibly redistributing justly acquired property without the owners' consent.
• Not universally applied via objective criteria, but discriminates by economically punishing the more successful/productive.
• Removes the freedom to keep and utilize the product of one's effort, removing incentives for productivity.
• Contradicts private property rights derived from the application of reason to transform nature's resources.

Therefore, any form of government-enforced egalitarianism of outcomes would fail to meet the definition of an objective law in a rational society.

Redistributionism:
Similar to egalitarianism, policies involving redistributing wealth from some citizens to others by force would violate objectivity by:

• Contradicting the ethical axiom of individual rights by taking justly acquired property without consent.
• Having no basis in observable facts, but asserting a subjective moral view that some people are entitled to others' wealth.
• Creating a disincentive for productive effort and undermining the capitalist system enabling mass flourishing.
• Applying unequally based on income level rather than universal objective criteria.
• Being detached from the metaphysical realities of human nature and what enables human life to sustain itself.

Since it severs the connection between effort and reward, redistributionism fails key criteria for an objective law.

Protests Destroying Property:
Protests involving the intentional destruction of others' property would clearly not be an objective law, as it:

• Violates the objective ethics of individual rights by initiating force to damage justly acquired property.
• Has no grounding in observable realities or valid philosophical axioms, but is an unjustified use of destruction.
• Cannot be consistently applied as a universal principle, as it implies people can damage each other's property at will.
• Contradicts the derivation of property rights from applying labor to transform nature's resources.
• Obstructs rather than enables the productive economic activities deriving from property ownership.

No formulation legalizing the intentional destruction of others' property could be objectively justified or grounded. It is pure initiation of force.

Reparations:
Policies attempting to provide reparations from some citizens to others based on demographic identities would violate objectivity by:

• Having no basis in facts about present reality, but motivated by subjective wishes about righting perceived past injustices.
• Treating people unequally by creating different rules for different racial/ethnic groups.
• Violating the individual rights of those forced to provide reparations to others by taking their justly acquired wealth.
• Creating a disincentive for productive economic activity by severing the reward from effort contributed.
• Enshrining discrimination and collectivism opposed to rational individualism.

Rather than being derived rationally, reparations policies stem from irrational emotional arguments detached from observable reality and not following valid principles. They could not be part of an objective legal framework.

In summary, none of those proposed laws/policies - egalitarianism, redistributionism, property destruction, or reparations - could be considered objective laws because they demonstrably fail to meet the key criteria outlined earlier. They are subjective, violating observable facts, valid philosophical axioms, property rights, and the requirements of human flourishing. An objective legal system would reject them as irrational and anti-life.

Confiscatory taxation, which involves seizing an extremely high percentage of an individual's income or wealth through coercive force, would fail to meet the key criteria for an objective law in a rational society:

1. Not derived from observable reality:
   There is no observable, empirical basis in reality to justify confiscating the fruits of an individual's productive effort beyond what is minimally required to fund the government's strictly delimited protection of individual rights. It stems from the irrational premise that the state owns the products of private effort.

2. Violates ethical axioms:
   Confiscatory taxation blatantly violates the ethical axiom of individual rights, specifically property rights, by taking justly acquired private property without the owner's consent through force. It essentially denies the metaphysical reality that individuals have sovereign minds/bodies.

3. Contradicts property rights:
   It negates the entire principle of property rights being derived from applying one's mental and physical effort to transform nature's resources for one's own use and enjoyment. If the fruits can be arbitrarily seized, there is no true private property.

4. Severed from perceptual roots:
   It disregards the observable fact that individuals have differing values, ambitions, and resultant outcomes based on their own choices. Confiscatory taxation treats these unequal results as unjust rather than a natural consequence of human volition.

5. Undermines human flourishing:
   By destroying incentives for productive effort and wealth creation, confiscatory taxation cripples the entire economic system enabling human flourishing. It creates a reality of destitution at odds with humans' rational self-interest.

6. Not universally applicable:
   Rather than being a general principle applied impartially, confiscatory taxation arbitrarily targets high producers/wealth-creators based on subjective determinations of how much income/wealth is considered "too much."

7. Violates principles of reason:
   By destroying the link between effort and reward, confiscatory taxation is detached from reason and instead based on whim-worship, violating the objective theory of value and human nature.

In essence, confiscatory taxation severs all connection to observable reality, ethical principles validly derived from human nature, and the metaphysical requirements of human survival qua man. It is solely an instrument of brute force contradicting all that an objective system of law would be based upon.

No degree of confiscatory taxation of justly acquired private wealth/income could rationally be included in an objective legal framework for a society seeking to uphold individual rights and enable human flourishing. It is a philosophically corrupt and anti-life violation of all that is objective.

Forced altruism, which involves coercively taking from some individuals to provide unearned benefits to others, would violate multiple key criteria for an objective law in a rational society:

1. Not grounded in observable reality
   There is no observable, empirical basis in reality to justify forcibly expropriating the products of an individual's effort to give to others who did not earn it. It contradicts the undeniable fact that individuals have distinct efforts, values, and resultant outcomes.

1. Violations of valid philosophical principles
   Forced altruism violates the bedrock philosophic axiom that individual human beings have sovereign minds/bodies and inalienable rights, including property rights over the fruits of their labor. It treats people as mere means to others' ends.

2. 
   

3. Severed from derivation of property rights

4. Property rights are derived from an individual's application of their reason and effort to transform nature's resources for their own use. Forced altruism severs this integral mind-effort-product connection.

5. 
   

6. Contradicts human nature and rational self-interest
   As volitional beings, humans rationally act to gain values that sustain their lives. Forced altruism negates this reality by forcibly taking the product of their effort aimed at their own interests.

7. 
   

8. Destroys incentives for productive effort
   By divorcing effort from reward, policies of forced altruism cripple the incentives for economic productivity and wealth creation necessary for human flourishing.

9. 
   

10. Not universally applicable via objective criteria

11. Forced altruism discriminates by subjectively deeming some individuals as unfairly "privileged" to justify taking their property for others deemed more deserving based on no objective standard.

12. 
    

13. Logically incoherent and self-contradictory
    Forced altruism claims to be advocating selflessness while itself employing the supremely selfish act of forcible expropriation against peaceful individuals to achieve its aims.

Rather than being derived from observations about reality and valid ethical principles, forced altruism stems from non-objective emotional premises that individuals do not have inviolate rights and that need entitles some to the product of others' efforts.

It not only violates the specific criteria for an objective law, but contradicts the entire philosophical base required for genuinely objective laws aimed at human flourishing - rational self-interest, individual rights, private property, and rewarding productive effort.

Forced altruism is thus a fundamentally irrational, anti-reality construct that could find no place in a legal system guided by observational facts and logically validated ethical principles. It is antithetical to the objectivity defining a proper system of laws for a rational society.

Principles derived from utilitarianism, the philosophy of defining moral good solely by what brings about the greatest happiness/well-being for the greatest number, would fail to meet the key criteria for objective laws in a rational society:

1. Not grounded in observable reality:

• Utilitarianism rests on the subjective, unobservable premise that "maximizing happiness" is the highest moral goal, without validating this via observable facts about human nature and rational requirements for flourishing.
• It provides no objective standard for measuring, quantifying or interpersonally comparing something as profoundly subjective as happiness/well-being across different individuals.

2. Violates foundational philosophical axioms:

• Sacrificing some individuals' interests/rights for a subjective "greater good" violates the objective ethical axiom of inalienable individual rights derived from humans' sovereign self-ownership.
• Using some people as mere means to others' ends contradicts the ethical principle of upholding each person's rational self-interest and rejecting force initiation.

3. Detached from perceptual roots of rights/ethics:

• Utilitarianism has no basis in perceptually observable facts about human beings as living entities requiring adherence to objectively demonstrable principles to survive and thrive.
• It disregards self-evidently observable human characteristics like individual distinctions, moral agency, and distinctive goals/values motivating actions.

4. Logically incoherent:

• Claiming to maximize "happiness" while enabling force-initiation against some for others' gain is a critical contradiction.
• Lacking a reality-based standard, it permits limitless redefinition of "greatest good" to rationalize any policy, voiding principles altogether.

5. Treats individuals as means, not ends:

• By evaluating all actions only by their consequences on an aggregate scale, utilitarianism denies the metaphysically primitive inviolability of individuals.
• It enables sacrificing any number deemed acceptable for a perceived greater overall "balance."

6. Cannot be universally applied:

• Utilitarian calculations necessarily lead to discrimination in applying policies based on subjective assessments of who is included or excluded from the "greater good."
• It endorses unequal treatment under the law for those designated as exempt from consideration or fit to be sacrificed.

7. Severs action from rational accountability:

• By focusing only on theoretical outcomes not processes, it exculpates any action based on after-the-fact calculations of perceived net positive utility.
• This negates the importance of rationally validating actions at the outset based on objective principles governing human conduct.

In essence, utilitarianism fails as an objective basis for law because it rests entirely on whimsically asserted, unvalidated ethical premises that contradict observable reality about human nature and rational ethics. It provides no objective standard and explicitly permits violating foundational individual rights.

Rather than upholding the objective inviolability of individual rights as ethics rationally derived from observable facts about human beings, utilitarianism peddles a arbitrary, anti-reality calculus justifying any degree of rights-violating consequences. It is anathema to the objective rule of law required for a society enabling human flourishing.

Would Kant's Categorical Imperatives qualify as "objective laws" based on the criteria we have outlined? Let me analyze this proposition systematically:

1. Not derived from observable reality:

• Kant's ethics are based on his self-created principle of the "Categorical Imperative" stemming from his personal philosophizing, not from empirical observation of reality.
• There is no observable basis for considering universally applying one's personal ethical maxims as a self-evident absolute requirement for moral conduct.

2. Violates foundational philosophical axioms:

• Kant's ethics fundamentally rejects ethics based on observable human nature and rationally validating principles for human flourishing, which properly grounds ethical axioms.
• It offers no justification from valid philosophers for why a priori ethical rules not derived from facts about reality must be binding.

3. Detached from perceptual roots of rights/ethics:

• Treating ethical self-obligations as authored solely by the reasoner's own mind severs them from the Observable facts about human nature and identifiable requirements for ethics/rights.
• It provides no means to validate imperatives against the facts about human beings and what ethical principles objectively enable human life to thrive.

4. Not logically grounded or coherent:

• Kant's system suffers from unresolvable contradictions, for example simultaneously holding that objective reality is unknowable yet prescribing one ought to act as if his imperatives have objective reality.
• It does not follow from valid axioms through a logically structured derivation of objective ethical principles grounded in observation of the world.

5. Cannot be universally applied:

• Since ethical imperatives arise from each individual's personal whims/mental legislation, there is no objective universal standard for crafting and imposing "universally binding" laws.
• This renders uniform, rational law impossible since each person crafts their own capricious "universals" which others can contradict with their own.

6. Rejects individual sovereignty/rights:

• Kant's ethics gives primacy to each individual's subjectively willed ethical self-obligations rather than recognizing objectively identifiable individual rights not to be sacrificed to others' whims.
• This undermines the basis for individual sovereignty over one's mind/body and opens the door to forced sacrifice for others' ethics.

7. Severs demonstration of validity from ethics:

• Kant argues ethical principles are valid simply by virtue of being self-prescribed by a rational mind, not because they can be proven rationally true by validating them against observable reality.
• This divorces ethics from validation by empirical facts and exercises of reason in favor of undemonstrable mind-born declarations.

In summary, attempting to codify Kant's ethical system into legal requirements would profoundly violate the key criteria for objective laws in a rational society. His ethics are subjective personal decrees detached from observation, logic, foundational philosophical principles, and the metaphysical realities of human nature.

Enshrining Kantian ethics as purportedly "objective laws" would be antithetical to the entire concept of deriving a objective, impartially validated, reality-based legal framework rationally aimed at enabling human flourishing. It fails across virtually every criterion for what defines true objectivity in law.

What about statism?

Statism, which is the ideology advocating concentrated power and authority in the state over individual rights, would violate multiple key criteria for objective laws in a rational society:

1. Not derived from observable reality:

• There is no observable, empirical basis in reality to justify vesting unlimited power in the state as an ideal. It is contrary to the observable fact that individuals are the fundamental units of conscious action.
• Statism rests on the anti-reality premise that the state is a higher metaphysical source of rights and values rather than deriving its limited purpose from individuals.

2. Violates foundational philosophical principles:

• Granting supremacy of the state over individual rights violates the foundational philosophic axioms deriving from the primacy of existence - that individuals have sovereign self-ownership over their own mind and body.
• It rejects the ethical principle of individual rights as metaphysically given, instead treating rights as privileges arbitrarily revocable by state edicts.

3. Detached from perceptual roots of rights:

• The derivation of individual rights stems from identifying the observable requirements for humans to act in order to sustain their lives as reasoning beings, which precedes and delimits any invented state institution.
• Statism detaches and abstracts the state from its basis in upholding the demonstrable conditions enabling human flourishing.

4. Logically incoherent and self-contradictory:

• Statism asserts that a construct (the state) created to protect individual rights has preeminent authority over the very individuals whose rights it is supposed to merely codify and defend.
• It claims legitimacy based on securing rights while vesting it with unlimited power to violate the very rights from which it derives legitimacy.

5. Cannot be universally applied by objective criteria:

• Statist consolidation of power necessitates the granting of special legal exceptions and powers to state agents based on their governmental roles, not universal, impartial rule of law.
• It defies equal application of laws by totalizing a collective over the sovereignty of individuals who are metaphysically primary.

6. Severs rights from their derivation in reality:

• By treating rights as grants bestowed by the state, statism detaches rights from their basis in objective metaphysical facts about human nature and requirements for survival.
• It severs the connection between individuals, their application of reason to reality, and the conditions they demonstrably require to thrive.

7. Negates the basis for governmental legitimacy:

• The sole justification for a government is to codify and enforce objective laws upholding the rights of sovereign individuals, as derived from observable facts about reality.
• Statism rejects governmental reason for being by placing the state apparatus itself over its tether to metaphysically and ethically antecedent individual sovereignty.

Enshrining statism as a guiding legal/political doctrine for a society would completely upend the hierarchy required for objective laws deriving their validity from confronting the observable facts about human beings and the conditions enabling their flourishing.

Rather than grounding the role of government in defending rationally demonstrable individual rights, statism catapults the state into an unlimited, inscrutable force detached from reality - negating the entire basis for objective law in the pursuit of human life and happiness. It is antithetical to the core premises and derivations required for any legal objectivity.

If we were to derive a set of 40 foundational, objective laws for a rational society based on the criteria we've discussed, they could potentially look something like this:

1. The Non-Initiation of Force Principle
   No individual or group has the right to initiate force or fraud against any other individual or their justly acquired property. Force may only be used in retaliation against those who initiate its use.

2. 
   

3. Sovereignty of Individual Rights
   Each individual has an inviolate sphere of sovereignty over their own mind and body, with rights that cannot be sacrificed to the interests of others or a collective.

4. 
   

5. Objective Theory of Rights
   Rights are not granted by the state, but are derived from the metaphysical requirements for humans to act in order to sustain and further their lives as reasoning beings.

6. 
   

7. Property Rights
   Each individual has the right to acquire, use, and dispose of physical property created or gained through their effort without coercive interference, as derived from their application of reason to transform nature.

8. 
   

9. Freedom of Action
   Each individual is free to take any action not violating the rights of others or involving initiation of force, and is responsible for accepting any consequences.

10. 
    

11. Rule of Law and Due Process
    All laws must be objective, universally applied, known in advance, and upholding the equal protection of rights through due process.

12. 
    

13. Freedom of Production/Trade
    Individuals have the right to produce and exchange goods/services on a free market without interference. Contracts undertaken without coercion are binding.

14. 
    

15. Freedom of Association
    Individuals have the right to freely associate or disassociate, and to join or form any group/organization that does not violate others' rights.

16. 
    

17. Freedom of Conscience
    The freedom to hold any beliefs, values, or worldview one chooses - and to express and discuss them - is inviolable provided no force is initiated on others.

18. 
    

19. Protection of Negative Rights
    The sole legitimate function of government is to codify and enforce objective laws protecting the negative, inviolate rights of its citizens - no further powers granted.

These potential first Ten Objective Laws aim to enshrine the key ethical principles and delimiting factors that can be rationally derived from integrating the observable facts about reality, the metaphysical nature of human beings, the demonstrable requirements for our flourishing, the validly derived ethical axioms like individual rights, and the logical chaining of reasoning required to manifest those imperatives in the structure of a proper government.

They seek to distill the essence of what would constitute a legal framework upholding the objectivity required for a society enabling each individual to independently and peacefully pursue their own flourishing through reason and freedom, bounded only by the caveat that they must respect the mutual rights of others to do the same.

While not sacrosanct or necessarily comprehensive, such objective laws rooted in observed reality, valid principles, and logical derivation could provide ethical guideposts enabling maximal human flourishing, happiness, and societal harmony under a consistent rule of objective law.

in addition:

11. Freedom of Inquiry and Pursuit of Knowledge
    The freedoms of thought, reason, independent inquiry, questioning, expression of ideas, and the unfettered pursuit of knowledge must be inviolable in order to enable human flourishing.

12. 
    

13. Rights to Privacy and Secrecy
    Individuals have the right to inviolate privacy over their personal affairs, activities, associations, communications, and to maintain confidentiality of any knowledge or information that is exclusively their own.

14. 
    

15. Personal Autonomy and Self-Determination
    Each individual is the sovereign over their own body, mind, values, goals, and life decisions with the freedom of personal autonomy provided no rights of others are violated.

16. 
    

17. Right of Self-Defense and Just Retaliation
    All individuals maintain the right to use force in self-defense against initiated aggression, and to seek restitution for any violation of their rights through impartial, objective legal process.

18. 
    

19. Objectivity in Governance and Consent
    Any governing system must be premised on objective principles solely aimed at upholding individual rights, with political authority deriving from the explicit consent of the governed via lawful process.

20. 
    

21. Freedom of Movement and Residence
    Individuals hold the right of free movement, travel, and to reside where they choose without hindrance or restriction, provided they do not violate property rights in doing so.

22. 
    

23. Sanctity of Volitional Associations
    Associations, relationships, contracts, and other voluntary bonds undertaken among consenting individuals through reason and free choice must be legally upheld as inviolable.

24. 
    

25. Objectivity in Education and Child-Rearing
    Parents hold the inviolable right to direct the education and upbringing of their children in a rational manner focused on objective knowledge and development of independent reasoning.

26. 
    

27. Objective Jurisprudence Independent of State
    The judiciary interpreting and applying objective laws must be structurally independent from the governing state to prevent violations of impartial rule of law.

28. 
    

29. Right of Philosophic Emigration
    If a society systematically abandons the political ideal of upholding objective, rights-preserving law, its citizens must retain the inviolable right to philosophically emigrate.

30. 
    

This additional set aims to cover key aspects like personal autonomy, bodily sovereignty, freedom of movement and residence, sanctity of voluntary associations, objective education, independence of the judiciary, and the right to emigrate from any state that philosophically abandons its objectivity and duty to rights.

Along with the first set, such principles could form a robust legal/political framework focused on preserving each individual's power of independent rational judgment and freedom to pursue their own flourishing - provided they respect the mutual rights of others to do the same under a system of objectively validated law.

in addition:

21. Objective Theory of Value
    The value of any good, service, action or choice is not subjective, but is derived from whether and to what degree it furthers or undermines the objective requirements of human life and flourishing.

22. 
    

23. Upholding Binding Contracts
    Voluntarily agreed to contracts among mentally competent parties, without coercion or fraud, must be regarded as objectively binding and enforceable under the law.

24. 
    

25. Equality Under the Law
    The objective laws must be applied impartially and equally to all individuals, with no granting of special privileges, exemptions, or discriminatory treatment under the law.

26. 
    

27. Objective Evidence and Due Process
    Legal judgments must be based strictly on objective evidence satisfying uniform standards of due process, with no convictions based on emotions, hearsay, or rights violations.

28. 
    

29. Exclusion of Non-Objective Legal Principles
    Any laws, policies or judgments premised on anti-reality doctrines like mysticism, faith, altruism, collectivism or other anti-reason philosophies shall have no legal standing.

30. 
    

31. Freedom of Invention and Innovation
    No individual's or firm's right to invent and innovate unmolested may be infringed, provided no one else's rights are violated in the process and objective laws are followed.

32. 
    

33. Rational Interest-Based Foreign Policy
    Foreign affairs and use of retaliatory force must be based solely on objectively demonstrating threats to the nation's rational self-interests in upholding rights and security.

34. 
    

35. Objective Burden of Proof
    For any claim of rights violation or initiation of force, the objective burden of proof rests on the accuser to prove their assertions based on facts and evidence beyond mere allegation.

36. 
    

37. No Ex-Post Facto Legislation
    No retroactive criminal laws or increased punishments may be applied to actions that were legal at the time they were taken, upholding objective rule of law.

38. Inviolability of Intellectual Property

39. 
    Rights to the creation and ownership of intellectual property must be guaranteed equal legal status and protection as material property, as products of human intelligence.

40. 
    

This set covers things like objective theories of value and burden of proof, exclusion of non-objective legal notions, upholding objectivity in contracts/foreign policy, equality under the law, due process, property rights over inventions/innovations, prohibiting ex-post facto laws, and protecting intellectual property rights.

The full set of 30 laws aims to comprehensively enshrine and safeguard objectivity, rationality, individual sovereignty, property rights, impartial rule of law, and all key ethical and economic freedoms across the legal/political framework of a society dedicated to enabling maximal human flourishing through reason and freedom. They delimit the government's role to upholding these imperatives impartially and repelling any violations of individual rights.

In addition:

31. Freedom of Romantic/Family Association
    All individuals hold the freedom to voluntarily form romantic partnerships, marry, pursue procreation, and establish families through unfettered personal choice without institutional interference.

32. 
    

33. Objective Standards in Jurisprudence
    Laws must provide objective, defined standards for identifying rights violations and appropriate penalties based on the nature of the offense against individuals.

34. 
    

35. Independence of the Military
    Any military force must solely exist to protect individual rights and repel aggression against the nation's citizens, strictly separated from domestic policing or dictating policy.

36. 
    

37. Ban on Victimless Crimes
    No action that does not involve the initiation of force or fraud against another's rights shall be regarded as a legally punishable crime or prosecuted as such.

38. 
    

39. Right to Homestead Unowned Resources
    Individuals may homestead and claim hitherto unowned/unappropriated natural resources through application of their effort/labor in extracting value from them.

40. 
    

41. Objective Limits on State Power
    The powers, structure, and reach of the state must be strictly delimited by objective constitutionally-defined limits, not by whim of legislators or autocratic diktat.

42. 
    

43. Freedom of Market Entry/Exit
    No individual or group shall prohibit or artificially obstruct, through force or anti-objective regulations, free entry or exit to any market or industry.

44. 
    

45. Inviolable Right of Self-Sustenance
    All individuals maintain the inviolate right to take any action required to preserve their own life, provided they do not violate the similar self-sustenance rights of others.

46. 
    

47. Prohibitions on Regressive Legislation
    No new law may be enacted that diminishes or contradicts any previously established objective legal principles upholding and codifying individual rights.

48. 
    

49. Transparency in Governance
    All proceedings, actions, policies, and information regarding any governing bodies must be open and transparent to face public scrutiny for objectivity.

This additional set deals with areas like freedoms of romantic/family association, independence of the military, banning victimless "crimes," the right to homestead resources, limits on state power, market entry/exit, inviolable self-sustenance, prohibiting anti-rights legislation, and transparency in governance.

In sum, the 40 laws comprehensively enshrine the ethical, political, economic, legal, domestic and foreign policy parameters required to manifest a rational society purely dedicated to safeguarding each individual's inviolate right to think and act according to their own rational judgment to sustain and pursue their own flourishing - bounded only by the common injunction against violating the same rights of others.

The role of the state is objectively delimited to impartially upholding these codified individual freedoms and repelling any violations internal or external. All laws and official actions would be evaluated against this objective criterion of preserving maximal liberty for human beings to apply reason to reality as sovereign individuals.

What about socialism and communism. Are they objective laws?

Neither socialism nor communism would qualify as objective systems of laws according to the criteria we have established. In fact, they violate virtually every key requirement for legal objectivity:

Socialism:

1. Not derived from observable reality - Socialism rests on the anti-reality premise that private property/capitalism must be abolished despite empirical evidence of their efficacy and necessity for economic productivity/progress. It mysticizes a detached, unobservable "collective" over actual individuals.

2. 
   

3. Violates foundational philosophical axioms - Denying property rights and individual economic/creative freedom violates the fundamentals of human beings as sovereign individuals who must be free to apply reason to reality.

4. 
   

5. Detached from perceptual roots of rights - Socialism detaches property distribution from its basis in respecting individuals' rights to product of their effort, severing its connection to demonstrated requirements for human flourishing.

6. 
   

7. Logically incoherent and contradictory - It asserts the centralized control necessary to equalize outcomes while expecting government to respect individual freedoms/rights which it has invalidated as premises.

8. 
   

9. Cannot be universally applied objectively - With no objective criteria for equitably judging private property claims, socialism devolves into ceaseless subjective power struggles over resource distribution.

10. 
    

11. Rejects individual sovereignty over life/property - It denies individuals' inviolate sovereignty over the fruits of their mind and effort in name of an abstractly defined "social" interest.

12. 
    

13. Basis detached from validation in reality - Socialism's compulsory economic theories float free of validation against observable cause-and-effect realities of how humans actually produce/trade value.

14. 
    

Communism:

1. Not derived from observable reality - Communism rests on the mystical, unobservable notion of a "pure" egalitarian society with a "withering" of the state despite all historical evidence refuting those claims.

2. 
   

3. Violates philosophical axioms of reason/individualism - Its imposed economic collectivism and demand for total selfless service to the "greater good" obliterates the axioms of reason and individual sovereignty.

4. 
   

5. Detached from empirical human nature - Communism floats detached from any perceptual evidence of what conditions are demonstrably required for humans to survive and thrive as reasoned beings.

6. 
   

7. Riddled with internal contradictions - It aims for a "stateless" society through totalitarian dictatorship; freedom through absolute authoritarian force; and abundance through abolished property incentives.

8. 
   

9. Universal application is logically impossible - With incompatible demands for both imposed equality of outcome and individual freedoms, its principles cannot be consistently universalized.

10. 
    

11. Negates individual life as ultimate value - Communism explicitly sacrifices individuals as mere means to its claimed "higher" anti-rational ends of imposed social collectivism.

12. 
    

13. Detached from objective demonstration/validation - Its theories are artifacts of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's intrinsic mysticism rejecting causality, proven repeatedly false against the observable world.

14. 
    

In essence, both socialism and communism fail on essentially every front to meet the criteria of deriving objective laws from a process of: integrating observable facts about reality and human nature; validly deriving axioms/rights from these empirical data; tracing out requirements respecting those philosophically objective premises; and structuring a legal/political framework solely aimed at upholding demonstrated conditions enabling reasoned human flourishing.

Rather than rational inquiry into what is objectively demonstrable, these ideologies are premised on detached "ideal" fantasies contradicting the metaphysical realities they purport to harness. They are anti-concepts severing abstract "visions" from their required roots in effecting proven, observable benefit for actual human individuals grounded in reason.

As such, both socialism and communism embody the antithesis of objective law - untethered dogmas permeated by whim, mysticism, and anti-reality premises fundamentally negating the possibility of legal objectivity or of validly upholding human flourishing through freedom and reason. They are philosophically disqualified from being instantiated as guiding frameworks for objective laws or legal systems.

What about fascism?

Fascism, like socialism and communism, fails to meet the criteria for a system of objective laws based on reason and observable reality. In fact, fascism violates the requirements for legal objectivity even more extremely:

1. Not derived from observable reality - Fascism is premised on mystical, anti-empirical notions of racial/national purity, ethnic/cultural superiority myths, and a deified, palingenetic rebirth of the theorized "pure nation." It rejects objective evidence.

2. 
   

3. Diametrically opposed to philosophical axioms - Fascism explicitly rejects reason, individual rights, and the axioms of human individualism in favor of emotionalist ethnic collectivism and subjugation to the mythical racial "folk-spirit."

4. 
   

5. Detached from any perceptual basis in human nature - Its theories float free of any observable, rational grounding in the metaphysical nature of human beings as sovereign individuals with inalienable rights.

6. 
   

7. Rife with contradictions and anti-concepts - Fascism combines anti-reason stances like racism and civic totalitarianism with anti-conceptual rhetoric about "progress" and industrial/technological advancement they prevent.

8. 
   

9. Universal applicability is incoherent - With ethnic persecution of "subhumans" and double-standards based on racial mythologies as first premises, fascism's principles defy universal, impartial application.

10. 
    

11. Explicitly sacrifices individuals to collectivist fetish - The core of fascist doctrine is the surrender of individual life, rights, and all decision-making to the radically subjectivist collectivist "Myth of the Nation."

12. 
    

13. Detached from any factual basis or validation - Fascist ideology stems from mystical, pseudo-intellectual irrationalists elevating pure emotionalism and detached Theories over the very possibility of objective truth.

Fascism meets none of the core criteria - it rejects reason, observable evidence, objective reality, universal principles, and the primacy of the individual in totality. Its entire basis is an incoherent tangle of mysticism, emotionalism, collectivism, and pseudo-intellectual rationalizations detached from any validation in facts.

Its irrational premises of racial superiority, ethnic persecution, extreme nationalism, anti-intellectualism, and deification of the all-powerful totalitarian state are fundamentally antithetical to deriving any kind of objective laws or system of impartial governance.

It is the very embodiment of all that legal objectivity rejects - pure anti-reason, anti-reality, and the destruction of the individualist philosophical premises required for objective ethical and political principles to even be conceptualized. Fascism is an ethical and epistemological abyss completely disqualifying it from any capacity to form a framework for codifying objective law.

Any instantiation of fascist doctrine directly negates and obliterates the very possibility of objective, impartially applied legal or governmental systems. It is at its core simply a totalitarian cult of irrational, subjective gang violence and oppression masquerading under paradoxically anti-conceptual rhetoric - fundamentally antithetical to legal objectivity in every way.

What about the Golden Rule?

To evaluate the Golden Rule from the perspective of legal objectivity, we must analyze both its positive and negative formulations:

The Positive Golden Rule: "Treat others as you would want to be treated."

Assessing against the criteria for objective law:

1. Not directly derived from observable reality - While intuitive, it is not explicitly derived from integrating empirical facts about the metaphysical nature of human beings. Its ethical injunction transcends direct observation.

2. Not validly derived from philosophically objective axioms/premises - It does not follow via logically provable chain from foundational axioms like the existence of individual rights or the objectively demonstrable requirements for human flourishing.

3. Detached from perceptual roots - Its moral basis is detached from explicitly demonstrated perceptual data regarding what conditions humans objectively require to thrive as reasoned individuals.

4. Potentially fraught with contradictions - As a context-less principle, it permits contradictory conclusions ("I want others to treat me poorly, so therefore..."). It leaves gaps allowing irrationalities.

5. Universal applicability is unclear - Its universality relies on a subjective, arbitrary framing of what constitutes legitimate desires for how one "wants" to be treated. Application is open to debate.

6. Subsumes individual sovereignty to subjective premises - It offers no objective basis to preemptively invalidate irrational desires/premises that would demand sacrifice of the individual.

7. Detached from empirical demonstration - It does not follow from rigorously proved, observable data about differential individual/societal outcomes validating it as a foundational ethical basis.

In essence, while intuitive, the positive Golden Rule does not meet key criteria for legal objectivity as it lacks grounding in integrating observable facts about reality, deriving demonstrably from valid philosophic premises, resolving all contradictions, and establishing a fully objective basis for universal applicability while upholding inviolate individual sovereignty.

The Negative Golden Rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not want done unto yourself."

This formulation fares better on some criteria:

1. Somewhat derived from observable reality - The negative premise corresponds more clearly to not inflicting observable harm on others that one would find harmful to themselves.

2. Integrates valid axiom of non-initiation of force - It coheres with the philosophically objective axiom that no individual may initiate force against another's rights/interests they would find violative.

3. Rooted in rational self-interest of prohibiting harms - It follows from perceptual evidence that rationally pursuing one's self-interest requires not suffering unwanted impositions by others.

4. More robust against contradictions - As a negative injunction against treating others in prohibited ways, it closes off avenues to blatant contradictions in practice.

5. More universally applicable through reciprocal constraint - It implies a common constraint applying equally to all individuals through the negative reciprocal standard.

6. Upholds individual sovereignty over life - As a constraint on inflicted actions, it retains the sovereignty of individuals to hold desires/beliefs over their own lives/interests.

However, the negative Golden Rule ultimately remains primarily a helpful ethical maxim, rather than a sufficiently objective philosophical basis to derive full legal frameworks:

• It follows from but does not explicitly validate the axiom of individual rights and non-initiation as philosophically objective premises
• It does not comprehensively define all conditions required for human flourishing, leaving gaps
• It does not establish objective hierarchies/resolutions when interests may come into conflict
• It does not explicitly validate property rights or other derivative principles required for a broad legal system

So in summary - while the negative Golden Rule formulation meets more criteria for objectivity, and can be seen as a philosophically valid ethical implication of even more fundamental premises - to serve as the sole philosophical foundation for codifying objective legal systems upholding freedom and human flourishing, it remains somewhat incomplete without broader explicit grounding in observable reality, valid ethical premises, and comprehensive derivations for universal application across society.

Its ethical utility is strong. But for deriving entire legal frameworks, a more robust axiomatic basis integrating comprehensive evidence, axioms, premises, and validly proved requirements respecting individual rationality and sovereignty would be needed to meet the full criteria for grounding objective law.

INTEGRATION

Is it possible and is there any way to integrate objective laws, the golden rule, Kant's categorical imperatives, and utilitarianism into one system for a rational society?

It is possible, though challenging, to attempt integrating objective laws derived from observable reality and valid philosophical axioms with certain aspects of the Golden Rule formulations, Kant's Categorical Imperative, and core premises of classical utilitarianism into a coherent overall framework for rational legal objectivity. Here is one potential approach:

Objective Foundations:

1. Ground the system in an explicit philosophically objective basis derived from:
   • Observable facts about the metaphysical nature of human beings as rational, sovereign individuals
   • Validly proven axioms and rights arising from this empirical reality (e.g. individual rights, non-initiation of force, property rights, freedom to act per reason)
   • Demonstrable requirements for humans to optimally survive and flourish as reasoned beings (pursued through freedom, incentives, rationality, etc.)
   • 
     

Integration of Other Principles:

2. The Negative Golden Rule can be validated as:

   • A philosophically valid implication of the axiom of non-initiation of force, deriving from individual sovereignty
   • A necessary constraint for rational pursuit of any individual's self-interest in an ethical social system

3. Kant's Formulations can be partially integrated:

   • The idea of acting only per principles that could become universal law coheres with deriving objective, universally applicable legal principles
   • Treating individuals always as ends, never merely means integrates validly with individual sovereignty and rights
   • But his exclusion of hypothetical imperatives and pure reason for creating maxims would be rejected

4. Rule Utilitarianism's premises can be incorporated:

   • The idea of crafting laws/policies impartially aimed at producing the optimally beneficial consequences/outcomes for society
   • Using the demonstrable requirements for human flourishing per reason as the objective basis for assessing "utility"
   • But ethical egoism and long-range rational self-interest would be the basis rather than pure sacrifice for the "greater good"
   • 
     

Overall Framework:

The foundation would be the objectively derived set of individual rights, ethical egoism, property rights, and other principles proven to create the conditions for humans to maximally thrive through reason and freedom.

Upon this basis, the negative Golden Rule could be accepted as an implication of non-initiation of force and a necessary social constraint enabling rational self-interest.

Kant's idea of developing universally applicable maxims/principles coheres with legal objectivity, as long as pure reason rather than hypotheticals shape those principles. His formulation of always treating individuals as ends in themselves aligns with the primacy of sovereignty and rights.

Finally, rule utilitarianism's consequentialist focus on crafting laws/policies aimed at maximally beneficial societal outcomes could be incorporated - using the requirements for human flourishing derived from the objective basis as the criteria for assessing "utility." Rather than pure sacrifice for the "greater good" however, ethical egoism and pursuit of long-range rational self-interest would be the integrating foundation.

In essence: Start with objectively derived individual rights, ethical egoism, and demonstrable requirements for humans to thrive through freedom and reason as the uncompromising foundation. Then cautiously integrate:

• The negative Golden Rule injunction as a social constraint enabling that foundation
• Kant's idea of impartially willing universal objective principles, but based on reason, not hypotheticals
• Rule utilitarianism's consequentialism, but using the demonstrable requirements of human flourishing as the metric for social "utility"

While challenging to unify all aspects without contradiction, this could provide a framework grounding objective law in observable reality and valid axioms, while carefully adopting other principles like the negative Golden Rule, certain aspects of Kant, and a rule-utilitarian focus provided they integrate with and do not violate the objective foundations.

The aim would be creating objective, universally applicable laws solely aimed at upholding the conditions for humans to maximally thrive through reason, individualism, rights, and deriving maximal mutual long-term benefit - rather than subjectivism, altruism, or treating individuals as mere means. An incomplete but potentially viable synthesis approach.

An objective legal framework:

Here is one way we could begin synthesizing an objective legal framework integrating elements from the various philosophical approaches discussed:

Objective Foundations:

1. Begin with the observable metaphysical facts about human nature - that human beings are rational beings who must use reason to survive and flourish, and are sovereign individuals with the capacity for conceptual consciousness and free will.

2. From those observable facts, we can validly derive the axioms and ethical principles that must govern an objectively rational social system:

Axiom 1: The survival and flourishing of the individual human life is the objective standard of moral value.

Axiom 2: Each individual has an inalienable right to their own life, derived from their emanating as a sovereign consciousness.

Axiom 3: To sustain and further their life, each individual has a corollary right to engage in rational action, guided by their own judgment using reason to understand reality.

Axiom 4: Each individual requires the freedom to act on their rational judgment to reap the full benefit of their reasoning mind as their basic means of survival.

Axiom 5: No individual may initiate force against another, as that violates the sovereignty of the other's consciousness/free will.

These axioms are observable, empirical requirements for human beings to exist and thrive. They establish individual rights as objectively critical ethical principles.

3. Additional objective principles can be validated as requirements for human flourishing:

• Property rights derive from applying reason and effort to reshape the world in service of one's life
• Freedom of trade/association maximizes the mutual benefit of each individual's reasoning capacities
• Protection from fraud/coercion safeguards rationality and sovereignty of consciousness

These form the core objective basis for an ethical legal framework aimed at creating societal conditions for humans to thrive through reason and freedom.

Integration Approach:

Integrating other philosophical tenets like the Golden Rule, Kant and Utilitarianism would proceed as follows:

The Negative Golden Rule injunction ("Do not treat others how you would not want to be treated") can be validated as a philosophically necessity stemming from:

A) The axiom of individual rights and non-initiation of force - it is simply the negative constraint respecting each person's sovereignty
B) Rational self-interest - treating others in ways one abhors invites retaliation, thwarting one's life-interests
C) Impartial application - it represents a universal principle governing conduct amongst all individuals

Kant's Formulations to integrate:

A) The idea of developing maxims/principles one could rationally will as universal laws aligns with objective legal systems being universally applicable
B) Treating persons always as ends in themselves, never merely means coheres with upholding the sovereignty of each individual
C) But exclude his opposition to hypothetical imperatives and reason guiding maxims - pure reason and individuality are foundational here

Utilitarianism Integration:

A) The rule-utilitarian focus on impartially developing rules/policies aimed at the best overall consequences is conceptually valid
B) But re-define "utility" as the demonstrable requirements for human beings to optimally survive and thrive through reason, rather than altruistic "greatest good"
C) Ethical egoism and each person rationally pursuing their maximal long-term interests would be the foundation, constrained by ethics prohibiting force
D) Laws/rules would aim at creating societal conditions enabling all to best exercise freedom to maximize their reasoning self-interest

So in summary, start with the objectively-derived foundation of individual rights, ethical egoism, property rights and other proven requirements for human survival/flourishing through reason as inviolable axioms.

Then carefully integrate:

• The negative Golden Rule injunction as a universal social constraint
• Kant's idea of willing universal principles, provided pure reason guides them
• Rule utilitarianism's focus on maximally beneficial outcomes for human thriving, based on ethical egoism and sovereignty rather than altruism
• 
  

While not a perfect unification, this could provide a rational approach to deriving an objective ethical/legal framework enabling human flourishing through reason and freedom, while adopting valid elements of other moral/political philosophies provided they integrate with and do not violate the objective foundations.

Is subjectivist egoism compatible with objective laws?

No, subjectivist egoism is not compatible with an objective system of laws based on reason and observable reality about human nature.

Here's why:

Perceptual Roots of Subjectivist Egoism:

• The mere existence of individual desires, whims, emotions separate from observable reality
• Anti-conceptual focus on the particular/subjective over the conceptual/universal
• Detachment from demonstrable requirements for human survival/flourishing
• 
  

Underlying Anti-Reality Premises:

• That subjective feelings, whims, and desires are valid regardless of their connection to reality
• That reality and truth are relative to each individual's arbitrary whims/perspectives
• That an individual's mere impulses have primacy over rationality and objectivity
• 
  

This violates multiple foundational, objective axioms and principles:

1. The axiom of Existence - that reality objectively exists independent of any individual's feelings about it.

2. The axiom of Identity - that things are specific integrations that can't simultaneously be other than what they are.

3. The axiom of Consciousness - that reason and adherence to reality are requirements of human cognition/survival.

4. The primacy of individual sovereignty and free will based in objective reasoning, not whim.

5. Property rights and ethical egoism deriving from applying reason to reality to further one's life.

6. 
   

Subjectivist egoism detaches from these foundations, floating in defiance of not just observable facts about human nature, but the metaphysical requirements of rationality itself.

It rejects the essentials of objectivity:

1. No integration of observable data about human beings as reasoned entities
2. Denial of proven axioms like non-contradiction and existence of identity
3. Contradicts humanity's demonstrable requirements for applying reason to survive
4. Universal application is incoherent since it defies universality itself
5. Negates individual sovereignty over their life by enshrining whim over rationality
6. Has no objective basis and validity untethered to evidence or metaphysical realities
7. 
   

In essence, subjectivist egoism is an anti-concept, incompatible with objective law because it rejects the entire basis of objectivity itself - observation, logic, reason, evidence, and the inviolate relationship between consciousness and reality.

An objective legal system derives from proven principles about what enables human flourishing through rationality. Subjectivist egoism irrationally severs the human mind from the objective constraints it requires to function and thrive.

While egoism appropriately focuses on upholding the individual's life as the objective standard of value, subjectivist egoism replaces rationality with whim-worship. It fails to meet every criteria required to sustain objective laws respecting the objective metaphysical realities definitive of human beings.