Your entire argument is built on sand: one person's desire for continued existence is not an objective fact. First, OWK may change his mind. Second -- and this is crucial -- my desire to keep living is not binding on how I treat others.
(Note that in the real world, outside of this example, our desire to remain alive is probably not even the highest moral imperative for most of us -- consider the contempt in which we hold those who would, say, betray their children to save their own skins. Clearly there's more to it than a simple desire to stay alive.)
He does not assign any Moral Value to his existence or his desire to continue existing; he simply recognizes his existence and his desire for continued existence to be an Objective Fact.
You've made an error here. Despite your assertion to the contrary, your whole argument tacitly rests on the assumption that OWK does assign a Moral Value to his (subjective) desire to continue existing. To say otherwise doesn't make any sense -- is it rational to form Social Compacts on the basis of things with no Moral Value?
For that reason, your description of the genesis of OWK's "Social Compact" is artificial and completely unconvincing. It's certainly not absolute, as you claim it to be. What you've described is not an objective system at all, but merely a convenient arrangement -- one among many possible.
For example, various empires have thrived for thousands of years on the basis of a social compact called Might Makes Right, and many individuals within those cultures died rich and happy after a life of conquest and enslavement. (Think of a happy Pharaoh.)
In the case of Might Makes Right, Mr. OWK has a couple of alternatives to your proposed social compact between moral equals. He could work to become one of the strong, or he could find his own proper level within the heirarchy, and toe the line in order to stay alive. And he need not worry about whether or not the other folks have a similar desire to continue existing.
Sure it is. If I am hungry, it is an objective fact that I desire food. That may change in the future; but as long as I am hungry, it is an Objective Fact that I desire food.
First, OWK may change his mind.
Okay... and?
What you are telling me is, "2+3 only equals 5 as long as you retain the 3 in the equation!! Otherwise, 2+ (nothing) does not equal 5!!" Well, yes, that's true; but as long as you do have both a 2 and a 3 in that additive equation, it absolutely equals 5.
In like manner, if it is true (as it is) that OWK does desire to continue living, then any Social Compact which he contracts with those of like desire, must necessarily be absolute (admitting of neither alteration nor exception).
To say otherwise doesn't make any sense -- is it rational to form Social Compacts on the basis of things with no Moral Value?
Is it rational to eat when one is hungry?
The rationality in OWK's social compact is simply this: it satisfies his desire for protection against being Murdered, as eating satisfies hunger.
For that reason, your description of the genesis of OWK's "Social Compact" is artificial and completely unconvincing. It's certainly not absolute, as you claim it to be. What you've described is not an objective system at all, but merely a convenient arrangement -- one among many possible. For example, various empires have thrived for thousands of years on the basis of a social compact called Might Makes Right, and many individuals within those cultures died rich and happy after a life of conquest and enslavement.
True; but "Might makes Right" offers OWK no absolute institutional guarantee of Not Being Murdered or subjugated. If everyone in the Social Compact "Might makes Right" does what the Compact demands, then in fact OWK has a very high likelihood of being murdered or subjugated.
By contrast, in the "Non-Aggression Social Compact", if everyone in the Social Compact does what the Compact demands, then OWK enjoys an absolute institutional guarantee of Not Being Murdered or subjugated by those within the Compact (if nobody in the Compact is murdering or subjugating anybody else, then it is an absolute certainty that OWK is himself Not Being Murdered or subjugated by those within the Compact).
That's why it's called enlightened self-interest.