Comment: I assume this was meant for me.

(See in situ)

I assume this was meant for me.

You're correct about everything in this statement, except NAP. All enforcement, state or stateless, violates NAP, because it imposes rules on violators via force, in ways that are clearly not self defense. The principle of public jurisdiction over individuals to judge, arrest etc., violates NAP. NAP is not a sound principle, because it prevents its own enforcement, and also contradicts other principles which are necesary to make it functional.

Arrest and trial and necessary to make NAP functional, but they contradict NAP, because not self defense.

Same with property laws. NAP says nothing about property rights, doesn't define them. A group consensus must be forced on dissenting individuals from the outside about what constitutes valid property. If you are standing on my property, minding your business, and I grab you, I am acting not in self defense, but in defense of a property claim that has to be validated by a majority rule or jury consensus, and so violates NAP.

The tactics needed for a security agency to prevail against a rogue agency inherently violate NAP.

Nuclear deterrence violates NAP, since it threats to harm innocents and would do so if consummated.

NAP is completely impotent by itself, and contradicts all the other principles needed to make it functional.