Deontology and consequentialism are actually not the only types of ethics. There is a third way that I prefer: virtue ethics. There is a burgeoning tradition of Aristotelian libertarianism that developts a theory of natural rights out of a neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics. See, for example, major works by Roderick Long, Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl, and Henry Veatch.
Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy
I’m actually moving towards virtue ethics from deontology. I think contractarianism is also a separate form of ethics, as I can’t see it stemming from any of the other groupings.
How can an action be separated from the result of that action? If one performs an action which is known to always cause a certain event, how can that event be separated from the action itself? The event must always follow the action.
In much of mathematics and physics, causality is seen as an illusion. I’m curious as to why this observation doesn’t seem to influence ethics (or at least the ethics that I read). I’d argue that dentological morals evolved because of the extreme difficulty in knowing all of the effects of an action, but they aren’t necessarily valid for all scenarios.
I agree that Tremblay is interesting to read, even if you don’t reach the same conclusions he does.
As for the original question, there’s always one thing you can do if there’s a question of whether not a rights-violation has occurred: third-party arbitration. However, if you have a libertarian society (or an AC society) with a reasonably functioning legal system, most such issues should already be addressed, and only occasionally would a novel situation present itself that needs to be sorted out from scratch.
The market process is a discovery process, even when it comes to legal problems–we don’t have to solve all possible situations beforehand, and probably can’t even if we tried.