Rilla, you have misinterpreted the NAP. In your frame, your points would have accuracy. But that isn't NAP. However you're not alone, many libertarians misinterpret NAP too. Even the guys who made the OP video misinterpret it on the margins. Whenever they have Thaddeus Russell on, they tend to get into heated debate that nudges towards what their misinterpretation is.
The NAP is the ideal that initiation of force is illegitimate. The operative word is "initiation". If you adhere to the NAP and you are threatened, you are fully within your rights as defined by the principle to defend yourself.
When we use this tool to evaluate our current society and a hypothetical stateless society, I think we find that the current society heavily protects the initiation of force and heavily subverts self-defense from that force. If this is true, then your concerns of the problem of violence are more relevant to the state world instead of the non-state world.
I am truly unworried about violent gangs uprising in the type of stateless society in the video. The easiest thing in the world would be for the productive people to put bullets in their brains. The key is that when that would be done so by self-defense and contract with other productive people, we would have finally eliminated the state.
Reply With Quote