I did not ignore his “arguments”, as evidenced by the fact that you have more to say about my post. So I have no idea why you would introduce such a straw man.
Just because it’s a point Molyneux aims to make doesn’t make it true or accurate. (Unless of course you’re one of the “Molyneuxbots” who think otherwise).
Nice try. Go back and listen to the video starting at 30:05. He even begins his statement by saying “the non-aggression principle is accepted by everybody…” and then catches himself, and being the smart guy he is realizes that there are always exceptions, and having the need to cover all his bases so as not to have people pick at the details of argument while ignoring the real point of it (as you have done here) and claim he made a blanket statement, he quickly makes his required qualifier…while making the widely understood exasperated facial expression to show that basically what he’s saying at the time is more of a cumbersome formality than an important point.
He is not trying to imply that there is some great mass of the human race that doesn’t accept the NAP in private relationships (as you want to characterize his argument to be so that you can make him sound less self-contradictory). He in fact does imply that virtually everyone, or pretty much everyone, accepts the NAP in private relationships. Indeed his entire point is almost the opposite of what you’re trying to make his argument out to be…that essentially all human beings (i.e. the vast vast majority, save the few exceptions of “insane” people) accept the NAP in private relationships. He even continues by saying “we all accept this”. (I seriously honestly doubt he’s saying “we, superior, not-insane, not-unreasonable people”…by “we” it sure seems to me he’s talking about “humans in general”)…because the entire point he’s trying to call attention to is that virtually everyone has no problem accepting NAP in private relationships, but when it turns to “the public sphere” as he calls it, “everything becomes the complete opposite”.
He even states the whole issue right after making those statements: “…so violations of the NAP are considered evil in the private sphere, violations of the NAP are considered both virtuous and necessary in the public sphere. So, the question is why?”
That is Molyneux’s focus. I don’t believe for a second that you asked Molyneux: “would you say that pretty much everyone accepts the NAP in private relationships?” that he’d say anything opposed to an affirmative…That he would take exception to that and be like “well no…only the sane, rational people believe that, which is actually a pretty small percentage of the human population”…as you seem to want to suggest he would.
Which of course would have to mean my characterization of his point is accurate. If you don’t agree, feel free to write him that question and let us know what response you get.
And if one might actually pay attention to the actual point Molyneux was trying to make, instead of pedantically focusing on his wording, one might realize that Molyneux himself would affirm that the number of people who do not accept the NAP in their private relationships is infinitely, and essentially negligibly small.
One might also realize that he has basically just asserted that Molyneux has been successfully promoting liberty to insane people.
Once again, I highly doubt even Molyneux himself would agree with you on your characterization of his own position.
Not likely. See above. (And pay closer attention to the actual point someone is making.)