A couple of my recent comments (with minor additions, as noted), may or may not be worth bringing to the fore…you will decide.
“I would however, invert your ending statement to “Absent the NAP, community peace will not survive”.”
I am not so sure about this. Even in a condition of horrendous NAP violations, most of us live in a state of community peace. [May have something to do with a commonly accepted cultural tradition?]
Let me take this a step further: someday in the decentralized dream world of voluntarily formed covenant communities, most of these communities would not be considered "libertarian" by outsiders.
The community could live within various generally accepted traditions: no pot smoking, no sex on the front lawn, church-going families only. Now…I did not say these were contractually stipulated; it is just that this is how, for quite some time, the people here chose to live. It never would have dawned on them that they needed a contract stating “no sex on the front lawn.”
Now...an outsider would say "look at all of these NAP violations. Why can't I smoke pot? Why can’t I have sex on my front lawn?”
He decides to smoke pot WHILE having sex on his front lawn on a SUNDAY MORNING while the families are RETURNING FROM CHURCH, because he sees that it is the community that has violated HIS NAP.
Yet, who has broken the peace?
A commonly accepted culture and tradition does far more for maintaining peace than does a thin application of the NAP. It seems to me that our job, as advocates of the NAP, is to identify the best intersection of these two (tradition and the non-aggression principle) that can best achieve a relatively libertarian outcome in the real world. It strikes me that the concept of “old and good law” offers this path.
Otherwise we are just conducting mental gymnastics, writing hundreds of papers trying to explore the most hidden, theoretical corners about topics that culture and tradition have (and will) resolve without any help from any of us.
"When I explained libertarianism to people unfamiliar with the concept I found that they will 'instinctively' recoil….And the interesting question is: where did we go wrong?"
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." (I didn't look up the verse, but I am sure that I am close enough.)
Libertarianism rightly offers that victimless (so-called) crimes are not "crimes" punishable by law, albeit we need not approve of such behavior. Jesus offers something similar with this statement, it seems to me.
Jesus does not offer that such actions are good, healthy, moral, life-sustaining, etc. [In fact, he told the woman “now go and sin no more.] He was the greatest example in both word and deed of a just and moral life.
Where did we go wrong? Might be as simple as: the NAP without a moral compass equals hell.
And most civilized people recoil at the idea of hell.