What Myrkul said, and:
If it is force, and you want to use force to stop us from using NAP, then explain to me by what principle you determine the proper use of force to prevent us from using our alleged force.
Unless you're a pacifist. In which case... Go eat some sushi and drink your Starbucks Mocha-china-double-non-fat-macarina-latte.
A true pacifist would have to support the non-aggression principle; pacifism is a superset of NAP.
Consistent pacifists certainly couldn't support the use of force to do any of the things that government does.
There have actually been many great pacifist thinkers who have made great contributions to libertarian thought, such as Leo Tolstoy.
I hear what you're saying, but obviously we'd part ways with pacifists when it comes to self-defense. Therefore I can't say I'd categorize NAP as a subset of pacifism, but rather as a competing philosophy.
Let's try a different angle. Why do you consider slavery to be wrong?
Because i have been taught that it is wrong(because don't wants to be a slave myself), and that there are equal rights for everyone. <- This is just my society speaking.
oh, so you decides whats moral and whats not?
Morality (or ethics) is not just subjective opinion. It is something that can be reasoned about with logic. It is something that mankind can reason about and discover.
Mankind can work out consistent principles and conclude that violating the rights to life, liberty, and property is immoral.
I'd have to part with you there. You need a rational basis for morality, and at best you get pragmatism when "efficiency" (good) is qualified by a goal. That's still better than what he supposes though.
For me, I don't care
why we arrive at our agreement. As long as we can agree not to stab and rob each other, that's good enough for me.
