As someone who is personally a minarchist, I'm wondering how the Non-Aggression Principle would be enforced in the AnCap model.
Given that there definitely is definitely no executive branch, people would obviously have to take personal defence into their own hands. But would there be trials for people who pollute your land? Surely not all 'aggression' is the type that would give you the right to shoot someone on the spot?
On another note, what about defense from external forces? You would need an organised and unified military. While I hate the government, I cannot understand the AnCap solution to an armed conflict with another country .
Can we use aggression to enforce the NAP?
I would goddamn hope so. If we are taking the extreme definition then I would presume even looking at someone in a way that made them uncomfortable would violate the NAP. It sounds good but it's also extreme the way how marxists believe that employment is slavery for access to food. :/
Can you try to make an example?
Aggression is the initiation of violence. You can't initiate violence to prevent the initiation of violence because that's a paradox.
That being said, you can use force or violence to defend against someone who has already initiated violence. Pacifism is not the opposite of aggression.
If someone is obviously about to commit violence, you need to commit it first, otherwise you are going to get fucked
How can you know they are about to commit violence? If they are threatening you, then that is the initiation of violence. Maybe it's better to say aggression is the initiation of force, but some people don't like that because they try to include things like asking people to pay rent as an initiation of force.