>>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
This is the poison pill that fucks up everything leftists do and think. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Free trade and voluntary association is the magic that turns wealth into a positive sum game because we all build on each other's work. You don't have to chop down a tree and carve the wood into a spear and then catch fish and then cook the fish. If everybody specializes in one specific thing then everybody benefits (division of labor). And because everybody benefits you don't need any kind of government to force people to do what is already in their best interest. This is so basic every 12 year old who has played an MMO figures it out.
>From a purely biological perspective, it is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle to just exist since any organism’s mere existence requires consuming resources that someone else could be deprived of.
This is so wrong I would call it stupid. Nature does not belong to anyone. The moment a person mixes his labor with a natural resource the product his is property (Locke's theory of property). It doesn't matter if somebody else could "benefit" from that property that person didn't do the work. You can say it would be "virtuous" to give a starving man food you don't need. But the idea that anybody can use the threat of violence to force you to do that is far worse from a moral perspective.
>2.3. List Of Ethical Topics That Libertarians/Ancaps Could Disagree On
So what? Libertarianism is not a cult where everyone has to agree on everything. The only thing we need to agree on is the NAP. And the NAP means only use force to defend your property or help somebody else to defend their property. But as we already covered earlier in how to deal with liars there are non-violent ways of retaliating too. If you think abortion is a sin under god or whatever you can refuse to associate with abortionists. The more people agree with you then the stronger the message. In reality people who have strong opinions on certain things like religion will probably choose to live near each other anyway.
I guess I'll answer children too since some prominent anarchists like Michael Malice admit it is a weak point. First of all you don't "own" your child and you can't imprison a child in your house just like how you can't imprison an adult. So neglected or abused children should be allowed to leave whenever they want. And while it's true that children can't physically defend themselves there is no shortage of white knights who will voluntarily step up to defend an abused child. Things can get bad if the child is so brainwashed they refuse outside help but that is a situation any society or form of governance will struggle to deal with.
>words words words
I don't have time. None of this is new. Everything I see in the article can be answered by reading The Ethics of Liberty (1982). Just because you cannot think of an answer to a problem doesn't mean there is no answer it just means you're not as smart as you think you are.