Why libertarianism is so dangerous.

[a500lbgorilla]

We're not talking about how a state can gain by initiating violence, we're talking about morality. The NAP wasn't devised with optimal nation-building in mind.

Then it's moral rules-making and...

The NA principle is rules-making. But why would anyone follow the rule? The answer had better be because it's their natural habit to do it (which Sapolsky had an interesting video exploring) or that there exists something to coerce people to follow it - refs, police, presidents, Gods, something.

But there isn't anything. People follow it because it's the best communal choice available, and people love best communal choices./s

[Renton]

The NA principle is rules-making. But why would anyone follow the rule? The answer had better be because it's their natural habit to do it (which Sapolsky had an interesting video exploring) or that there exists something to coerce people to follow it - refs, police, presidents, Gods, something.

But there isn't anything. People follow it because it's the best communal choice available, and people love best communal choices./s

There are plenty of ways outside of the state to provide incentives against aggressive behavior. In a free society it would be on property owners to defend their property, either on their own or more likely by proxy. Literally every square meter of land would be someone's property and you would be subject to the owner's rules. A big problem with crime in today's world is that most of it occurs on public property and there is much less urgency to deal with that crime since no one is directly responsible for combating it [edit: AND has a vested interest in combating it].

There are also plenty of ways for a state to exist with minimal infringement of the NAP. Taxes can be reduced. Freedoms can be granted. Private property rights can be increased. All of this can be informed by the NAP without being "untethered from reality."

[a500lbgorilla]

There are plenty of ways outside of the state to provide incentives against aggressive behavior. In a free society it would be on property owners to defend their property, either on their own or more likely by proxy. Literally every square meter of land would be someone's property and you would be subject to the owner's rules. A big problem with crime in today's world is that most of it occurs on public property and there is much less urgency to deal with that crime since no one is directly responsible for combating it.

There are also plenty of ways for a state to exist with minimal infringement of the NAP. Taxes can be reduced. Freedoms can be granted. Private property rights can be increased. All of this can be informed by the NAP without being "untethered from reality."

This is why I make my points. You are drinking the gatorade. It's either Libertarian understanding or wrong.

Any understanding of the human world is going to have to sample from a lot of world-views. You're too deep into just the one.