>>591 (OP)
I don't have time to read all this so if you want a better response then quote the parts that you find particularly convincing.
>The Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle is typically defined as an ethical rule prohibiting aggression (or actions that violate negative rights). But there are lots of disagreements among Libertarians regarding what the NAP prohibits, allows, and mandates since “aggression” is not clearly defined.
The literature is very clear that the NAP only applies to property rights. People who try to argue that racism or misgendering is a violation of the NAP are confused leftists or agents trying to fracture the movement.
>Most libertarians are deontologists, so they view morality as a list of rules that shall never be violated. The justification for these rules is that at a macro-level these rules have consequences that cannot be considered at a micro-level. To put this in perspective, let’s take the example of lying. If a drug addict lies to a police officer about the presence of cocaine in his house, he can avoid getting arrested. But if too many people lie, then people won’t trust each other. Here the micro level concern is getting arrested, and the macro level concern is social trust.
The NAP is only about when is it legitimate to use force against someone (e.g. they are stealing your stuff). That doesn't mean lying is a good thing or should be tolerated. If somebody lied with regards to a business transaction (fraud) then that is a form a theft and falls under the NAP. If somebody just lied and hurt your feelings then you have to find a peaceful way to deal with that. In most human societies once somebody gains a reputation as a liar they generally get shunned by their neighbors, which is perfectly consistent with the NAP. You don't have to associate with somebody you don't want to.
Like most criticism of libertarianism/anarchism this is not a brand new problem that humans have never had to deal with before. It is certainly not something the state can magically fix even if it tried.
>Negative rights require positive rights for their enforcement. The right not to be assaulted implies the right to justice if you do get assaulted. Negative rights requires positive rights to: the labor of the police, detectives, lawyers, and the entire justice system.
This is not true at all. You have the right to defend your property. You can enlist the help of others either voluntarily or through payment. If you're such an asshole that you cannot find any friends or family to help you then that is somewhat your fault. Although as the article says at the top but conveniently forgets to mention here, this is a simple problem to solve with insurance contracts. You don't have to pay the full price of a swat team if you offset the risk with premium payments.
>2.2. Every Existing Organism Can Only Exist At The Cost Of Another