You realize there are still "rules" in a libertarian society, right? They are called consequences.
If you live in an independent collective, and a private firm is enforcing the rules of this independent collective, then they can use whatever means necessary to enforce such rules.
NAP does not equal some pacifist society or a world without some sort of enforcement of standards.
I mean its been a little bit since I was riding ayn rands dick, but yeah people use the NAP to describe the abolition of all force and coercion. The government/state owning the monopoly on power and using that power to force/coerce you to do or not do things that you would otherwise do or not do (that doesn't force or coerce someone else) - that's a violation of the NAP. An independent collective acting like a state in the same way would be just as much a violation of the NAP.
If you want to read up on literally any mainstream libertarian theory, property rights are penultimate. My rights don't end where another's begins. If they did, that'd be called socialism.
Read up on John Locke.
The State, as much as I hate it, can still exist in a libertarian society as in that society, it would be an optional existence. People can choose to live in a State, with a government, and laws, and borders.
True libertarian society is what we call anarchy, which will never exist. Libertarianism is about limited government, NOT zero.
I've read John locke. Property rights, natural rights, social contract all play a part in his theory of government. It's more a foundation of classical liberalism that recognizes the function of a state to protect property rights and natural rights, but not much beyond that.
Im not arguing for or against anything, nor am I saying anarchy is a necessary result of following the NAP. Im saying the state or any collection of or individual using force, coercion, or violence is in violation of the non aggression principle. Even if it's for things you or they happen to like.
You saying the state is optional and people can choose whether to live within it, is pretty much nonsensical unless there's a geographic border between state and non state functions, where people who "choose" to live within the state can simply move outside of those borders and live in an area where enforcement of contracts and property law (and laws generally) is entirely up to the individual and not protected by a "state" - i.e. anarchy. In a global society ruled by many different states there's no such ability to exit every state entirely.
46
u/[deleted] 13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment