[N]on Aggression, or the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), is an incomplete concept, and possibly an intentionally incomplete concept, and alone it is an untestable and therefore unscientific) statement. Without stating what one is prohibited from aggressing against, non aggression is a half truth, using a half statement, that hacks western altruism. Its an act of deception by suggestion.
The question is the possibility of constructing an anarchic polity using the prohibition on aggression.
But aggression against what?
A) Rothbardian Non-aggression against Intersubjectively Verifiable Property
B) Aristocratic Non-aggression against Demonstrated Property En Toto?
The only means of providing an anarchic polity that is preferable to a non-anarchic polity, is by aristocratic ethics. Otherwise a low trust environment with high transaction costs is not preferable – and particularly not preferable to those with expensive capital to protect, and complex production to engage in.
The NAP hacks western altruism by prohibiting aggression, which the westerner intuits as true, but only against intersubjectively verifiable property, which once understood, the westerner rightly deems immoral and irrational.
Blackmail is the canary in the ideological coal mine. Blackmail causes retaliation because it imposes an unwanted and unnecessary cost, and breaks the contract for cooperation.
Rothbard’s ethics produce ghettos, Mafias, and create demand for authority.
The only reason to advance ghetto ethics is to justify parasitism and attempt to outlaw retaliation.