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 .
I'll take a look at the Friedman. I understand that in a state of nature, you are living on a plain of anarchy with a structure of government on top of it. Since because having a government (not necessarily like the ones we interact with today) is natural and anarchy is natural, I take a careful approach to approaching either extreme. While I genuinely do believe that government sucks at everything, (e.g) government has a bad problem with military innovation because operations have to be kept secret so contractors cannot just operate as they wish, thinking up an an alternate system to national defense is quite annoying as generally I think the system should be chosen by the free market. I sort of have a pavlovian response of 'ugh' when the time comes to cover how a system should be implemented because it reminds me of socialists experimenting with their stuff but I'll take an interest in this side of things rather then just the moral argument now.