Bump for an answer.
Come on AyeYo, whether you agree with it or not the non-aggression principal and the rights it is based on has been outlined many times in this forum by right-Libs and AnCaps. You are just playing dumb for the sake of an argument. If you want to make the argument that this approach is incorrect or
coercive in and of itself, or that it
only results from a priori assumptions, or that it
involves a forced-agreement to a social contract just as much as any other socio/political approach (my argument), then
please lay out that argument in a post and have that discussion/debate. But continually playing dumb and attacking strawmen is getting old and honestly does a disservice to an honest intellectual debate about the merits (or not) of a natural rights based approach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_libertarianismI've actually done exactly that in multiple threads. Here's the argument, it's a very simple one.
Obviously not everyone agrees with the NAP and other such shit that libertarianism is based on.
It follows that not everyone wants a libertarian type society, in fact, most don't.
So, if you want to institute this libertarian society, you're going to have to FORCE people to abide by a system based on beliefs they don't believe in.