One of the problems that I see with moral theories such as the NAP is that regardless of their merits or construction, they have absolutely no bearing whatsoever to physical reality except insofar as people are willing to respect such rules. Rights are ultimately formed by agreement between men and backed up by might.
However, given that many here believe that following the NAP is “right” and that following the NAP also leads to a more prosperous and harmonious people (not something I necessarily disagree with), the question is how do we change the set of rights that people agree that other people have in order to move human society closer to the ideal?
Right now the only real option is reforming or disbanding human-led government and replacing it by another power structure; the preferred one here being anarcho-capitalism where power is distributed amongst many actors and none enjoy territorial monopoly except under property that they directly and legitimately control.
That’s fine, but property and all other such things are human inventions, and as such, they only exist if humans are willing to respect them. If someone violates the NAP, there is no physical law that’s going to prevent them from doing so. In many cases, people ideologically support these violations thus lending a significant amount of power to those who would aggress against others. That’s how we end up with events like WW2, which as much as you can blame on governments, would never have happened had these governments not had the consent of the people. Hitler, Hirohito, etc… could not have done it by themselves.
So ultimately we have to concede that a system like anarcho-capitalism may lead to less aggression overall, and we can simultaneously assert that it is the most logical system for the ends which we value such as liberty and prosperity and we may be correct in doing so, but it doesn’t necessary follow that there actually will be less aggression. For some reason or another, people derive either monetary or psychic profit from breaking the NAP both individually and collectively as part of large groups.
The question is, which gives more profit: Cooperation or aggression? Right now the increase of wealth and division of labour means that cooperation usually leads to better results (withness the end of slavery in recent times) but the profitability of aggression is never zero, otherwise nobody would ever aggress.
What if we could change that? What if there was a way of physically enforcing the NAP (let’s leave aside the fact that nobody agrees exactly on the threshold where an action starts to take on shades of coercion)? One way of doing this could be via a world-encompassing AI with the sole task of preventing people from violating the NAP. You could otherwise do whatever you wanted in life, but if you tried to kill someone, a force would stop the bullet from striking and entering the other person’s body. If you tried to steal from someone, a force would prevent you from doing so. For more ambiguous areas such as whether you have the valid right to homestead an area or not, a court could arbitrate on the decision, but once the outcome was made the AI would force you to obey it. If the court ruled that you were illegally squatting on someone else’s land, it would physically prevent you from re-entering that land.
Instead of other humans having to enforce the NAP against you and the problems that come from that since humans seek power for their own ends, a god-like entity would do it. This AI would do nothing else and would have no personality so it would not seek power for itself; its only purpose would be to enforce the NAP and turn it into a physical reality.
Leave aside the question of whether such an AI is possible or not; assume that technology permits it. Would you endorse this reality? If so, then why do you prefer this reality (which is a de-facto minarchy)? If not, then why not and why do you believe that human-led enterprises would do a better job at preventing violations of the NAP?