NAP is one of many strategies

For some people NAP is an universal and objective ethical requirement.

For example NAP is the foundation of Stefan Molyneux's argument from morality. His logic is that any ethical theory must be NAP-compliant for it to be possible to be universally successfully applied (or at least this is how I understand his theory of Universally Preferable Behaviour). But a theory saying "it is good to have as many of my needs met as as possible" also can be universally accepted and yet result in initiation of violence by some.

Ayn Rand also thought that initiation of aggression was universally immoral. Her objection to violence was that violence contradicts reason. But I do not think that by initiating aggression a person necessarily gives up their reason. 

Here are a few examples where NAP does not apply:

• Price Harry lives off the system of state violence and he probably gets his needs met fine. Because the same applies to other members of the political class, he is not an isolated case.
• If anyone close to me was starving, for whatever reason, I would steal food to feed them. I would not consider it immoral. This is a rare "lifeboat situation", but still it counts.

So maybe NAP is just one strategy for getting your life needs met. I think it is a deep and good one and it works 99% of the time. But I do not think it is the only one.

Brainwashing and threatening people is a working strategy for some.

Being a skilful thief can also work for some situations. Especially if you know how not to get caught.

This is just not something people like to talk about, because it is a bit creepy. But I gave two examples above to prove that what I say is true.

What are some other strategies? How to choose which one to use? I do not know. I am not sure if it is worth figuring this out for me at this moment. But on the other hand, it is interesting... Perhaps it depends on the person and their situation? Did our rulers discover the answers to these questions?

Perhaps Leonard Cohen features this dilemma in "Story of Isaac". Obviously I have no idea what he really meant. Who the fuck knows such things anyway?

And if you call me brother now, 

Forgive me if I inquire, 

"just according to whose plan?"

 [preference for NAP strategy]

When it all comes down to dust

I will kill you if I must, 

I will help you if I can. 

 [preference for other strategies]

When it all comes down to dust 

I will help you if I must, 

I will kill you if I can.

Building voluntary social networks

To change things good people need to build strong voluntary social networks to make the existing coercive hierarchies obsolete. Fighting existing systems is good but so is creating new networks. Or maybe it is better.

Other people came to this conclussion before. Rand's fictional Galt's Gulch, Konkin's Agorism, libertarian enthusiasm for peaceful parenting and techniques like Nonviolent Communication and coaching are all about building non-coercive social networks. I think they are right. This is where the freedom begins.

And there is no other way of creating new voluntary networks and institutions than improving personal relationships first. Here are some examples of what I mean.

I worked on this chart for an hour so hopefully you like it. Hard to believe that there was a time when I treated anything remotely resembling management workshop materials as complete nonsense.

How to change things

This meme inspires me.

To make the state obsolete, we need the following new models:

• strong voluntary social networks -- to give people real safety nets
• robust moral systems -- to replace state supported dogmas as source of life wisdom
• efficient ways to protect against violence -- so people need less police
• fair dispute resolution mechanisms -- to replace the "justice system"
• reliable non-coercive defence against foreign states

Excuse me while I go and build some of the above.

Short-range NAP for individuals

A strategy optimal for a system as a whole is not necessarily one that is best for each individual. The prisoner's dilemma is an example where the best strategy for individuals is one detrimental from a global perspective.

In the same way the Non-Aggression Principle being optimal by some global criteria (economic efficiency, Universally Preferable Behaviour) does not necessarily imply its universal superiority for individuals. The example of Prince Harry - and other members of the political class - is the case in point.

In reality most people are not anti-NAP, they just follow a short-range version of it. They limit non-aggression to friends, family, clients, trading partners, friend's friends etc. Hence they support programs which benefit their immediate social network at the expense of other people. 

A world where individuals follow a short-range NAP is divided into millions of often overlapping and relatively peacefully cliques with violence increaseing in relationships between people from different cliques. The simplified schematic borrowed from Animal Social Networks shows such world.

This is more-less what the real world looks like. Each clique represents one individual's social network connected with a short-range NAP. Violence may emerge where the cliques meet.

This is a state of things which the Voluntaryists oppose. 

But is it necessarily beneficial for all individuals to extend their short-range NAP to a full NAP and therefore eliminate all areas of violent conflicts? I have not seen empirical evidence that it is. Each individual needs to decide by themself which range of NAP serves their needs best.