The NAP is a half truth because it is an incomplete sentence. If you fully expan

The NAP is a half truth because it is an incomplete sentence. If you fully expand the sentence you will falsify NAP.

“the method of decidability by which we avoid conflict and insure cooperation is to restrict our actions to those that do not aggress against…. (what)?”

You see. the reason libertarians disagree is because they can’t define ‘what’. So they use ‘Principle’ as a means of avoiding answering the question. Why? Because if you answer the question of ‘what’ you find that you end up with classical liberalism not with libertarianism or anarchism. Why? BEcause otherwise it is impossible to form, hold, and preserve a polity in competition with other polities.

Try it. You can’t do it. I know more about the libertarian fallacy than anyone living. And the way to test (praxeological test) the NAP or libertarian ideology is to ask the sequence of steps necessary for the formation, holding, and persistence from competition of such a polity.

In other words, *create a model*. And the reason people don’t do that, and the reason there are not ‘advanced literatures’ on libertarianism, is because it’s not possible. Period. End of story.

There are no conditions under which the formation of an anarchic polity is possible. The best one can do is rule of law by natural law and severely limit mandatory investment in the commons to that which we call a minimal state. Even then, open immigration and the NAP fail – the litmus test is blackmail. And that’s even before we get to trade policy and immigration, and financialization, and the problem of free riding on the commons of competing polities, and the fact that such libertarian polities always attract such malcontents that they drive out the good, and draw the ire of ‘traditional’ polities.

I put a stake in rothbard’s heart but that vampire of nonsense that foolish young men seem so attracted to, always seems to find an artery-of-idiocy to bite into.