Do you accept that I have NOT mostly incorrectly thrown around the term NAP ?
No, and here's why. You would work with some others who mostly agree with you to create some organization. The purpose of the organization would be to defend rights. So far, so good.
But then someone else might make an organization with the same goals. Their document describing their policies for resolving right vs. wrong might differ from yours and some folks might feel it's better. Maybe some corporations (the individuals running it, rather. hehe) would think their document and/or ability to defend their rights are better than yours and pay their defense fees to them instead of you. They might even think your organization is tyrannical (I'd agree) and feel the need for a defense service against your organization. Due to your obsession with this notion of consistency or non-arbitrariness or whatever you want to call it, you seem convinced that only your organization can be allowed to fulfill that service of defending rights, something I find to be irrational as I believe in free markets. Just by the act of them choosing a different service provider, you would (I believe) feel justified in using violence to stop them from choosing a different service in the market, and I would consider that to be a clear violation of the NAP.
Right at the start you identify an example of a "group".
(And you have concurred that the group should remain liable.)
And in order for a group to be liable within a NAP society at large
there must be some governance over "groups".
And for the society to be healthy, that governance over groups
must not be seen as arbitrary by society at large.
For example:
If a group is created tasked with doing harm and that group moves from place to place in society at large
doing harm and moving on to the next place, the free market fails unless the free markat solution is avaialble everywhere.
At even then, the free market does not guarantee that solution to remain in place.
Back to general discussion --
Using a free market solution for anything provides no guarantee
that the solution is available everywhere in society at large
or that it will remain so.
Therefore; those things required for a healthy society at large cannot be left to the free market(without governance and imposition when necessary) such as defense of the society at large ("large land mass" defense if you will).
That said, the minarcist solution does not prevent the market from offering competing solutions
to those requirements of a healthy society.
And in as much as the market does offer a certain amount of competing service,
that can help reduce the amount of that service which must be imposed.
(examples: FED EX and UPS make for a smaller need for USPS
and private lawyers reduce the need to impose hiring of more public defenders for society, etc )
-- "Due to your obsession with this notion of consistency or non-arbitrariness"
It is not an obsession,
it is a factually based conclusion about what is required for a healthy society.
The amount of arbitrariness in use today is solid evidence that
arbitrariness in the "Rule of law" leads to unhealthy society.
A "Rule of law" whose implementation seeks to reduce arbitrariness is required for a healthy society.
-- "you would (I believe) feel justified in using violence to stop them from choosing
a different service in the market, and I would consider that to be a clear violation of the NAP.
And you would be incorrect.
The market could compete in defense services (Blackwater, Raytheon, Boing, other military industrial complex, et al.
but those "groups" would not have free reign, that is, they would be subject to the implementation of NAP in society.
And if the market began to recede (eg. Boing and others went bankrupt, began causing harm, etc) then imposition would elevate to ensure no lack of the service required for a healthy society.
Your objections have been addressed,
so do you accept that I have NOT mostly incorrectly thrown around the term NAP ?