I skimmed your stuff, and it appears you argue against a very watered down version of the NAP... you seem to first claim that libertarians claim it's some platonically existing concept, then argue against this strawman.
Are you familar with Hans Hoppe's "argumentation ethics" defense of the NAP, not as a Platonically existing entity, but as a norm that it is impossible to refute (without a performative contradiction).
I specifically recommend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6V0XzJfm8U
as a starting point.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representativ