My "Austro-Stirnerite" framework

Economics:
In terms of economics I am a Rothbardian who favors agorism as the best possible means of achieving a free society. Though I personally think Ludwig Von Mises expounds the foundation of economics in a far more powerful and informative way than Rothbard does, though Rothbard corrected Mises' mistakes (ex// on minarchism and monopoly prices) and perfected his economic system.

Ethics:
I no longer am a natural rights adherent as I originally was. When I originally be-
came an anarcho-capitalist in June of 2008, I accepted Murray Rothbard's natural rights basis for libertarian ethics, but in the back of my mind questioned its val-
idity. Originally I thought the basis for natural rights was that since we are born into a state of nature without any form of coercive domination, it is a violation of that "natural" control of our lives and destiny if the state (or -- for a micro-
scale example -- a thief or murderer) coerces us of threatens us with such coercion.

Upon careful study recently, however, I have discovered that the doctrine of
natural rights is nothing more than a species-centric form of utilitarianism.
Rothbard and other adherents refer to the "morality" of natural rights as coming
from "what's best for one's nature". Upon study of this, I realized my nihilist
streak extends to ethics as well: it isn't just the natural rights system
I disagree with, it's *any* objective system of ethics.

Max Stirner's masterful "The Ego and its Own" obliterates any and all arguments
for objective ethics, just as Rothbard and Mises obliterate any and all arguments for economic interventionism and statism. He regards them as "spooks" that are essentially formed over time as human beings attempt to build a rationale for cer
-tain actions that are deemed "moral" or deemed "immoral".

But the burden of proof lies heavily on the person claiming that X action is
moral or immoral. Why would stealing be "immoral", according to natural rights
theory? "It's not good for the nature of humanity." If you ask me, to hell with what's good for humanity. Not only is that no objective basis for an ethic, but it is steaming with anti-individual and pro-collectivist thinking.

Ethics do not exist. Prescriptive ethics are fine and a good framework for a free society. Objective ethics are chains on individuals and their freedom to act.