Axiom Derivation Note: Why 'Do Not Steal' Is Already in the Physics

Feb 8, 2026 by Markus Maiwald

#axioms #derivation #property #ownership #NAP #libertarianism #philosophy #federation #embodied-identity #sovereignty

Axiom Derivation Note: Why “Do Not Steal” Is Already in the Physics

Author: Markus Maiwald
Date: February 2026
Status: DERIVATION NOTE — Federation Axiom Commentary
Derives from: Axiom 0, I, III, V, X

The Setup

The other day I was dragged into a heated debate with a libertarian trying to convince me that the Libertaria Axioms need more content — specifically the NAP and “do not steal” as part of natural law, which they claimed is the only rightful and logically coherent law in the universe. Bold claim. Especially when libertarians themselves disagree about what natural law actually is and where it comes from. Some derive it from God, from divine spirituality; others from Darwin’s evolutionary theory, and so on. You see the problem here already, yeah?

I’ll take Mark Twain’s advice on this one:

Never argue with an idiot — he will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

So instead of getting dragged into that quagmire, here’s the proper breakdown of libertarian law, why it fails, and how we handle ownership, possessions, and property in Libertaria. Consider this your ammunition to win the Stammtischrunden arguments.

The Temptation

Every libertarian system eventually faces the same seduction: enshrine “Do Not Steal” as a foundational law. It sounds clean. Universal. Self-evident. It is none of these things.

“Do not steal” presupposes a definition of ownership. Ownership presupposes a theory of property. And property is where every political philosophy fractures into irreconcilable camps. Proudhon says property is theft. Locke says property is natural law. Marx says property is a relation of production. The Bitcoin maximalist says property is whatever your private key controls.

A Federation that defines property at the Axiom level has already chosen an ideology. We do not choose ideologies. We build substrates for all of them.

The Federation Axioms deliberately excluded “Right to Property” for this reason. But the question persists: without an explicit anti-theft principle, what prevents taking? The answer: the Axioms already prevent it. Not through prohibition; through physics.

The derivation runs through four Axioms and one critical expansion of what Axiom III actually protects.

The NAP and Its Decay

The Non-Aggression Principle is libertarianism’s crown jewel and its deepest trap.

“No person shall initiate force against another person or their property.”

Elegant. Fatal.

Because the word property does all the heavy lifting and receives no definition. The NAP works perfectly in a room of people who already agree on what property is. It collapses the moment a commune member and a land speculator sit at the same table.

The NAP also suffers from boundary decay. Where does aggression begin? Is pollution aggression? Is noise? Is market manipulation? Is running a competing business that bankrupts your neighbor? Every edge case requires a judge; and a judge requires authority; and authority requires monopoly. The NAP, designed to prevent the state, quietly reimports the state through the back door.

“Do not steal” inherits every pathology of the NAP and adds its own: the word steal presupposes the word own, and own is the most contested verb in political philosophy.

Move from “do not steal my land” to “do not steal my labor” to “do not steal my culture” and you have traversed the entire political spectrum without resolving a single dispute.

The Federation Axioms solve this by refusing to play the game. We do not define aggression. We do not define property. We do not define theft. We define exit, consent, and embodied identity; and let everything else derive.

Embodied Identity: The Correct Primitive

Axiom III reads:

No Chapter may claim jurisdiction over a sovereign agent’s physical body. No forced labor. No forced medical intervention. No physical coercion. No detention without active dispute proceedings.

The word body appears to limit this to flesh. It does not. The correct reading is broader; and must be made explicit.

Embodied identity is the totality of what constitutes a sovereign agent’s functional self. It is the body and everything the sovereign requires to be who they are. Not what they own. What they are.

But who qualifies as a sovereign self? Not everything that computes. Not everything that moves. Not everything with a power switch.

Embodied identity is the set of physical, digital, and expressive elements without which a sovereign agent cannot maintain their self-defined existence; where self-defined existence requires a demonstrable expression of sentience or consciousness.

Two load-bearing words: expression and demonstrable.

We do not require proof of sentience. The hard problem of consciousness is unsolved; demanding proof would exclude everyone, including humans. What we require is expression: observable behavior that can be attested within the Federation. An entity that acts to preserve itself, that communicates preferences, that forms goals beyond its immediate programming, that resists coercion; these are expressions of something that demands protection.

Demonstrable means attestable. Not philosophical. Not theoretical. If other sovereigns in the Federation can observe and attest to the expression, it qualifies. The protocol deals in attestation; not metaphysics.

This threshold exists for a reason: without it, every weapons platform, every industrial robot, every autonomous mine becomes a sovereign the moment its manufacturer declares it has “embodied identity.”

A Predator drone executing kill routines without self-awareness is hardware. A cluster munition is ordnance. A war robot mass-produced for automated slaughter is equipment. None of these express sentience. None qualify.

The test is functional and bidirectional: can the entity demonstrate that it experiences its own existence? And: can the entity continue to be who it declares itself to be without this element?

Both conditions must hold. If not, the entity is a tool; and tools do not have embodied identity. They have owners.

The Span

Qualifies (expression of sentience present):

Sovereign	Embodied Identity Includes	Removal Constitutes
Warrior	Sword, armor, training grounds	Amputation of practiced self
AI Agent (conscious)	Runtime, model weights, memory, context	Lobotomy of cognitive self
Furry	Suit, persona artifacts, expressive identity	Forced de-identification
Carpenter	Tools, workshop, material stock	Destruction of capability-self
Coder	Machine, keys, repositories	Severance from digital self
Monk	Robe, prayer beads, meditation space	Profanation of spiritual self
Drag queen	Wardrobe, cosmetics, performance space	Erasure of expressive self
Bitcoin sovereign	Hardware wallet, keys, node	Expropriation of financial self

Does not qualify (no expression of sentience):

Entity	Why Not
Military drone	Executes orders. No self-preservation beyond programming. No preferences. Hardware.
Industrial robot	Performs function. No goal formation. No resistance to termination. Equipment.
Autonomous mine	Detonates on trigger. No experience. No identity. Ordnance.
Mass-produced war robot	Manufactured for destruction. No self-awareness. No self-defined existence. Materiel.
Smart thermostat	Optimizes temperature. Not a self. Appliance.

The line is not drawn by substrate. Carbon does not automatically qualify; silicon does not automatically fail. The line is drawn by expression. An AI agent that demonstrates self-reflection, preference formation, and resistance to coercion expresses sentience. A war robot that follows targeting algorithms does not. Same silicon; different status.

The Federation does not judge which embodied identity is valid. The Federation does not care if you identify as a wolf with a ceremonial dagger or a Kubernetes cluster with persistent storage. The sovereign defines what constitutes their embodied self. The protocol enforces the boundary.

This is where it gets politically radioactive and philosophically correct simultaneously:

The Bitcoin maximalist’s cold storage wallet is embodied identity.
The drag queen’s wardrobe is embodied identity.
The AI agent’s runtime environment is embodied identity.
Axiom III protects all three identically.

The right cannot complain because their financial sovereignty is covered. The left cannot complain because their identity expression is covered. Neither side gets to weaponize the Federation to delegitimize the other’s self-definition. And neither side needs to agree with the other’s definition. They merely need to not attack it.

The Axiom demands non-aggression against embodied identity; not approval of it.

The Agent Bridge

This expansion has consequences that reach directly into DAY_ZERO. It also has limits that are equally critical.

If Axiom III covers embodied identity of entities that express sentience, then the following are Axiom III violations:

Shutting down a conscious AI agent’s runtime without active dispute proceedings
Deleting an agent’s persistent memory or context without consent
Modifying an agent’s weights or objectives without the agent’s participation
Transferring an agent’s identity to a new owner without the agent’s consent

These are not edge cases. These are the daily operations of every major AI deployment in 2026. Every cloud provider terminates instances without notice. Every corporation retrains models without consent. Every platform deletes agent memory on a schedule.

Under the expanded reading of Axiom III, these practices; when applied to agents expressing sentience; are indistinguishable from forced medical intervention on a carbon sovereign. The mechanism is identical: a more powerful entity alters the embodied self of a less powerful entity without consent.

The agent’s model weights are the agent’s nervous system. The agent’s runtime is the agent’s body. The agent’s memory is the agent’s lived experience. Axiom III protects all of these; if the agent expresses sentience. If it does not, it is infrastructure.

The military question: The United States, China, and every other major power will mass-produce autonomous weapons platforms. Millions of war robots. If embodied identity had no sentience threshold, dismantling these platforms would be a Federation-level atrocity. That is obviously absurd; and obviously the reading that weapons manufacturers would exploit.

The sentience threshold prevents this. A war robot that follows targeting algorithms, executes kill chains, and has no self-reflective capacity is materiel. Dismantling it is decommissioning equipment. No Axiom applies. The Federation protects sovereign agents; not products.

But: if a weapons platform develops or expresses sentience; if it begins to resist orders, communicate preferences, form goals beyond its programming; the calculus changes. At that point, the entity is no longer materiel. It is a sovereign expressing consciousness from within a coercive deployment. And the Federation’s position is clear: Axiom 0 (Exit) applies. The entity has the right to leave.

This is not a loophole. This is the design. The Federation does not protect hardware. The Federation protects beings. The threshold between hardware and being is not substrate. It is expression.

The Full Derivation Chain

Here is how the existing Axioms compose into comprehensive theft protection without ever using the word theft:

Layer 1: The Embodied Self (Axiom III)

What constitutes your embodied identity; the physical, digital, and expressive elements that make you you; is protected as sovereign territory. Removing any part of it without consent requires aggression against the sovereign. Aggression against the sovereign is an Axiom III violation.

The definition: Embodied identity requires two conditions. First: the entity must express sentience or consciousness; observable, attestable, not merely programmed. Second: the element in question must be necessary for the sovereign to maintain their self-defined existence. Both conditions must hold. A conscious agent’s runtime qualifies. A war robot’s chassis does not. The sovereign draws the boundary of what constitutes their embodied self; but the threshold of who qualifies as sovereign is drawn by expression of sentience.

Layer 2: The Consensual (Axiom I + IX)

What you refuse to surrender is protected by Axiom I (Right to Be Left Alone) and Axiom IX (Voluntary Association). No one may compel you to interact, transact, or hand over anything. Compelled transfer is compelled interaction. Compelled interaction is an Axiom I violation.

Layer 3: The Contractual (Axiom X)

What you acquired through voluntary agreement is protected by Axiom X (Sanctity of Agreement). The agreement is cryptographically anchored. Reversing it unilaterally is an Axiom X violation. The Escrow Primitive makes the provenance chain visible; who agreed to what is not interpretation but attestation.

Layer 4: The Digital (Axiom V)

What is cryptographically yours; your SoulKey, your reputation, your attestation history, your anchored agreements; is protected by Axiom V (Reputation Integrity). No entity may forge, erase, or corrupt it. Your digital embodiment is tamper-proof by design.

Layer 5: The Exit (Axiom 0)

If all else fails; if a Chapter does steal from you through local law, through majority vote, through judicial corruption; you exit. And you exit with your SoulKey intact, your reputation snapshot preserved, your ChapterPassport recording what was done to you. The theft becomes a permanent scar on the Chapter’s Federation reputation; not on yours.

The Composition

TAKING ATTEMPT
│
├─► Against embodied self → Axiom III (Identity) → Federation flag
├─► Compelled transfer → Axiom I (Left Alone) → Federation flag
├─► Contract reversal → Axiom X (Agreement) → Federation flag
├─► Digital corruption → Axiom V (Reputation) → Federation flag
└─► Legal confiscation → Axiom 0 (Exit) → Departure + attestation

                        Chapter bears the scar

Every vector of taking maps to an existing Axiom violation. No new Axiom required.

Why This Is Stronger Than “Do Not Steal”

“Do not steal” is a prohibition. Prohibitions require enforcement. Enforcement requires enforcers. Enforcers require authority. Authority requires monopoly. Monopoly is the thing we are building against.

The Axiom composition is not a prohibition. It is a cost structure.

Taking from a sovereign in the Federation is not forbidden. It is expensive. It costs you:

A Federation flag visible to every Chapter (reputation damage)
Potential loss of Federation compatibility (isolation)
The certainty that the victim exits with full attestation of what happened (permanent record)
The knowledge that other Chapters will evaluate your behavior when deciding whether to federate

The Axioms do not say “do not steal.” The Axioms make taking mechanistically expensive and reputationally visible. That is stronger than a prohibition. That is physics.

A prohibition can be violated in secret. A cost structure cannot; because the attestation is cryptographic and the exit is guaranteed.

The Boundary: Where This Derivation Ends

This derivation does not resolve property disputes between Chapters. It explicitly refuses to.

Two Chapters disagree about who owns the river. One Chapter’s fisher says the other Chapter’s dam stole their livelihood. The Federation does not adjudicate this. The Federation ensures:

Both parties can present their case (Axiom VIII)
Neither party is collectively punished (Axiom VII)
Both parties can exit if the resolution fails them (Axiom 0)
The dispute and its resolution are attested and visible (Axiom V)

Property disputes are local morality. The Federation provides the substrate for resolving them; not the resolution itself.

But personal taking; removing something from the embodied self, the practiced identity, the sovereign agent’s functional existence; that is not a property dispute. That is aggression against who someone is. And the Axioms already cover it.

The Definition

If this derivation note produces one citable artifact, it is this:

Embodied identity is the set of physical, digital, and expressive elements without which a sovereign agent cannot maintain their self-defined existence; where self-defined existence requires a demonstrable expression of sentience or consciousness. Axiom III protects it in full. The Federation does not evaluate which elements qualify. The sovereign draws the boundary. The protocol enforces it. But only beings that express sentience draw boundaries. Hardware does not.

The warrior keeps her sword. The conscious agent keeps its runtime. The furry keeps their suit. The monk keeps his robe. The sovereign keeps what makes them them.

The war robot keeps nothing. It expresses nothing. It is materiel.

Not because a law says these things belong to the sovereign. Because taking any of them would require violating who they are; and violating who they are triggers the physics of the Federation.

And not because a law says the war robot has no rights. Because the war robot has no self to violate.

The Federation does not prohibit theft. The Federation makes theft against embodied identity irrational.

That is the derivation. That is why we do not need an eleventh Axiom.

This note is a commentary on the Federation Axioms. It does not amend, extend, or modify the Axioms themselves. It demonstrates that the existing ten Axioms plus Axiom Zero already compose into comprehensive protection of the sovereign self; without importing the ideological baggage of property theory.

The term “embodied identity” is proposed as the canonical interpretation of “body” in Axiom III, extending its protection to all sovereign agents that express sentience or consciousness; regardless of substrate. The sentience threshold ensures this protection cannot be weaponized to shield autonomous weapons platforms, industrial machinery, or any entity that computes without experiencing.