First problem: as he introduces the NAP, he equates what some societies teach their children about interaction amongst friends with interaction amongst enemies as well. Kids are NOT taught that violence is wrong; they're taught violence is wrong when conducted in certain ways. Two different things.

It's ironic that he says governments are wrong when they use aggression to enforce norms, yet he doesn't address how kids, even in his NAP Utopia, are taught that aggression is the way to enforce norms. In that situation, the aggression is by the parents.

He says "when you don't want to pay for an evil war, you get arrested." Here his argument solidly deviates from reason and embeds itself in the warm embrace of emotion.

After he says that "using violence to get what we want is the foundation of the society we live in" it turns off the rails. I can't go much further. Violence isn't the foundation of this society; it's a foundation of all societies.

Now the metaphor of how this is Ptolemaic geocentrism. I'm done.

I don't like Molyneux.