What gives me a Monopoly on Reason?

The basic philosophy presented by Monopoly On Reason represents a consistent set of premises and ideas, but it would be repetitive and annoying to rehash those basic premises in each post. Therefore, here is the general basis from which other ideas are derived. Many of the ideas here are not solely mine, though I strive to absorb ideas and present them as I see them instead of just restating the philosophy of others. I am indebted to those that came before me that kept these alive, as I am attempting to do now. Many of these seem perfectly reasonable in their abstract form here, but they will be tested in posts that seek to find the most extreme applications of this philosophy.

Individual Liberty - Individual liberty is the starting point. Individuals have the right to do as they please as long as it does not initiate aggression on other individuals. This includes the right to form groups as they see fit, but any groups formed do not have additional rights other than those of the individuals in the group.

Do Not Initiate Aggression - Aggression may be countered, as occurs in self-defense, but it may not be initiated morally. Frustration happens and really mean people exist, but that does not change the essence of right and wrong. This is known in some circles as Zero Aggression Principle.

Reason, not Doctrine - I believe the way to gather knowledge is through logic and reason. I reject superstition, religious doctrine and appeals to authority as a basis for discovering truth.

Assign No Value To Existing Structure - When discussing ideas, I do not choose one over another simply because it is already socially acceptable. When discussing structure such as government, an idea gets no extra consideration because it is closer to the current system or seems more reasonable to the mainstream. I have always felt the best way to discover a moral system is not to be biased by the current situation and climate. Assessing how much change would be required or how to go about change is best considered another matter entirely. I will address both sides–theory and implementation, but the emphasis is on theory.

Moral Ends Cannot Be Reached Through Immoral Means - I simply do not believe that immoral acts are justified. The premise that there are exceptions are the basis for most of the avoidable problems in history, either directly or through setting precedent that are later abused.

Ends Do Not Justify Means - this is really a restatement of the phrase above. This is probably the phrase that is most opposed in the mainstream, whether acknowledged or not.

The Good of the Many Does Not Outweigh the Good of the One - Often, justification for coercion is claimed when some coercive action results in outcomes that are judged by some to be more important than individual liberty. I disagree completely. Individual rights are paramount and discussion of whether the outcome of coercion benefits others is irrelevant.