The specific question was about anarchy leading to mob rule. Bringing the NAP in was a distraction.
To put it in a different language: the question was a question on the institutional viability and the outcomes of it - similar to, say, a question: ‘can a socialist economy create more wealth?’ Invoking: 'well, of course there won’t be violence, else it wouldn’t be ‘my’ anarchy really doesn’t answer the question.
But then again, as LS has said, it’s not his intention on giving answers.
mob rule is what we already have now.
Teach a man to fish.
Where specifically?
This also begs the question: is your method the best way to teach a man to fish? Obviously an empirical and agent-dependant question/answer, but I’m not a big fan myself.
“Well, my only point was that your response, namely that a chaotic anarchical condition is philosophically incompatible with the NAP, not only fails to answer his question but actually ignores it alto” <= Esurics point is right on top.
Why does it have to be the best? Did I claim it was?
I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you referring to something I wrote or something Esuric wrote? If the former, please cite.
Wait, so you are suggesting that without government, the world will devolve into chaos? What evidence do you have that this will happen when people, in general, recognize that extortion called taxation is wrong?