folks would be left to make the determination themselves.
As it stands now "folks" are left to make the determination themselves. You know who they are? Psychopathic individuals in "government."
NAP is easy, common sense, and logical. WAAAAAAYYYYY more so than the arbitrary psychopathic dictates of the state.
I NO HURT YOUR BODY YOUR THINGS, YOU NO HURT MY BODY MY THINGS
Property can be very clearly defined by the foundational tenet of all true libertarianism, individual self-ownership.
Gray areas and debates may come up, sure. They come up now around the nonsensical and violent laws of the state. Why not opt to deal with these "gray areas" in a philosophy not built on violence?
Look around. Do you see reason ruling over whim now? Of course not. The extant state was designed on whim, PURPOSEFULLY. Namely, the "divine right to rule."
The NAP can’t work to prevent aggression in and of itself.
A lawful authority is needed so that everyone is clear on what actions do & do not constitute aggression.
Without it folks would take it upon themselves to make that determination.
Peter believes abortion constitutes aggression, Paul doesn’t.
Peter believes intellectual property can be stolen (via aggression) while Paul doesn’t believe it’s property at all.
Do you see the problem? Those are just two examples that libertarians disagree on. Now factor in the billions of people whose views aren’t remotely libertarian: Commies, Socialists, NeoCons, Jihadists etc.
Nobody has argued that there should not be lawful organizations or rules. They should be based on ISO and not the whims of politicians. You need to do more research and reading regarding Voluntaryist philosophy, as your criticisms do not even apply to the philosophy you are attempting to question.
You can’t have competition in law & protect rights.
If you believe that you can you need to do more thinking
Yes, the government we have now is far from a proper one & most of the folks running it have no interest in liberty or the rights of the individual.
That’s why we need to get rid of those folks.
If you get rid of the whole thing altogether you guarantee that might & whim will rule over right & reason
This is an unsubstantiated, speculative claim. However, to allow open seats of power based on favors, family, and majority opinion (what government is now) and not based on sound private property grundnorms, results in what we have now:
Might and whim ruling over right and reason.
You have made no argument showing how ISO-based grundnorms result in this description. The description you make applies much more accurately to government than the lack thereof.
It is also critical to remember that voluntaryists are not against governance, but coercive, non-voluntary government violence.
I’ve backed up the claim. How do you propose to use reason to resolve a dispute among neighbors when they have different ideas about what does and does not constitute aggression?
If your neighbor steals your intellectual property and he doesn’t believe it is property (and can’t be convinced that it is) the use of force (might) is the only way to settle it.
The same applies in the case of an abortion where one party believes there’s been a murder and the other party doesn’t. There’s no way to mediate such a dispute. Again, might would rule over reason.
How is this done now?
You are saying since people disagree, it is better just to stick with a system based on theft and murder, than to have courts and other such organizations in a system based on private property?
That’s an insane and dangerous perspective.
You haven’t answered my question, but I’ll answer yours.
A proper government needn’t be funded through theft.
Now, care to address how a voluntary system would address the problems I presented via right & reason instead of might & whim?
The only reason might and whim rule exist now is because of government. Without government, there would be impartiality under the law. In other words all would be equal under law, and law would be based on damage to people, their property, or people failing to keep their word. There would be a victim. In a voluntary society, government would no longer be there to protect predators. People who believed in might being right would DIE and be outlaws. They would not be welcome in a peaceful and civilized society.