My concern with the NAP fruitcakes, are the opposite, in that they won't assert any power at all even when its necessary.
When a cancer emerges in the society, they won't do anything at all to cut it out before it's too late. For example, when someone buys land and builds a strip club in our neighborhood, and our houses are going to fall from $100k to $20k, I hope the NAP people are willing to use to force to cut out this cancer rather than cite the NAP principal (from an archetype standpoint, we must drive the thieves from the temple, not wait for them to show force).
Hmm. Well I think issues like this are essentially a function of statism.
Like in a nation or voluntarily formed communities claiming land, it wouldn't really matter because you'd own it collectively and want the strip club if it made the overall land better. And if it didn't then there'd be some mechanism to make sure the strip club doesn't happen, like they wouldn't be welcome in the community anymore as soon as they started laying the bricks.
In statism tho we all live on top of each other and we don't have any of the norms or mechanisms that would emerge otherwise, so we need the state to do zoning.
I think it's like, if you want to be principled then you have to actually be principled.
Basically:
"Can someone cross the imaginary line?" Yes, of course, if it's unclaimed. But then..
"Can someone cross the US border?" means we're necessarily talking about there being a state and whether the state should enforce their own claim.
So it's a contradiction to say the state should not enforce the US border.
Their principled point of objection is where the claim happens (that you can't validly claim billions of acres by just saying it's yours). After that, the enforcement flows from it. You don't have a principled case against the enforcement aspect.
So my issue with the "NAP fruitcakes" isn't that there's any problem with the NAP but that they're actually just wrong in how they extend it. They're picking a point that's not where the aggression happens, and trying to pretend principle applies there.
Evoking principle in a way that's not actually principled seems so much worse than just not being principled.
Like, at least what the liberals want isn't to literally not enforce the border.
What these NAPs want would be super destabilizing while not actually being any closer to the point of principle or the ideal outcome.
Classic half-measure. :)
But I think you and most NAP people agree with that. I didn't mean to denigrate the NAP philosophy. Any principle taken to its extreme can be criticized.
Oh, definitely fine. I just wanted to clarify (especially since the title was misleading enough). I didn't take any offense and mostly agree with you anyways.
I don't like ever labeling myself. But sometimes it seems necessary for context.