Yeah, sometimes they talk about "the non-aggression principle" but capitalism itself violate the non-aggression principle. You pretty much laid out how and why. If you want a society based on the non-aggression principle (which ancaps tend to say they do) then it cannot feature capitalism as part of it.
the NAP in libertarian thought isn't a prohibition against doing harm. it's a tool to re-cast the violation of property "rights" as an "initiation of force" which justifies whatever "retaliatory force" is necessary to reassert one's right.
one wonders, in this moral universe, why the state couldn't justify its monopoly on violence by claiming ownership over everything and everyone, just like Sovereign Citizens claim it already does, especially since the entire country was already purged of its previous "owners" by force.
Yeah, sometimes they talk about "the non-aggression principle" but capitalism itself violate the non-aggression principle. You pretty much laid out how and why. If you want a society based on the non-aggression principle (which ancaps tend to say they do) then it cannot feature capitalism as part of it.
the NAP in libertarian thought isn't a prohibition against doing harm. it's a tool to re-cast the violation of property "rights" as an "initiation of force" which justifies whatever "retaliatory force" is necessary to reassert one's right.
one wonders, in this moral universe, why the state couldn't justify its monopoly on violence by claiming ownership over everything and everyone, just like Sovereign Citizens claim it already does, especially since the entire country was already purged of its previous "owners" by force.