Follow up - I read your "rebuttal" to the NAP and found it incredibly flawed @ekklesiagora. It wasn't very original, nor was it remotely logical. It was at best a critique of Rothbard's logic directly, rather than the principles you were critiquing. At worst, it was a trite and abject strawman of the entire concept of the NAP.
You can check the comments on that thread directly as I've added there too, but the jist is that:
- your entire argument was built on several false dichotomies outright.
- The argument semantically distorts the concept of Aggression, which is the initiation of force, and implies that theft of property is not an act of aggression.
- The argument presumes obligations exist between all individuals. Here is my rebuttal to that premise: You do not have to set yourself on fire to keep others warm
RE: The Social Democratic Case Against Anarchism