What if one rattlesnake decides to change to a hawk strategy? Then he loses utility since he gets into a fight every single encounter. To a hawk, rattlesnakes act like other hawks. Clearly he's worse off than before. What if a rattlesnake switches to a dove strategy? Then, as far as behavior goes, he's no worse off, but neither is he any better off. To a dove, rattlesnakes act like other doves. Thus, we conclude that the rattlesnake strategy is an ESS.

In game theory, a form of rattlesnake strategy is called "tit-for-tat." If others know (from experience if not communication) that you will retaliate, they are less likely to attack; the costs are higher than attacking a dove. Since most people are not perfect Gandhis, there is generally a cost for aggression. Overall, in human society "all investment that takes the form of protecting rights must be, in the net, socially wasteful," as James Buchanan put it. "Gains are secured from the reductions in predation-defense effort." Thus, the non-aggression principle, and the notion of rights, might be considered as a principle or strategy based on solid game theoretic and evolutionary grounds - it is an evolutionary stable strategy.

Necessary Conditions for Life-Improving Actions

• Individuality - Every person has a will.

  Every person has a will (mind, conscience, soul) that he uses to make choices and decide how to live. One's will is non-transferrable. A person is not autonomous unless he controls his will.

• Liberty - Every person must own his faculties.

  Every person has faculties - the talents, skills, knowledge and intelligence particular to him. One's faculties are natural property. A person is not self-owned unless he owns his faculties.

• Property - Every person must own the material product of his labor, and be free to trade it on any consensual basis.