No, you are missing the point. The ethic of reciprocity is about reciprocal justice. It is based on retribution, not restitution. The vast majority of people would prefer restitution over retribution if possible, but the theory of justice (in terms of reciprocity) is based on retribution.
The NAP is the ethic of reciprocity but applied to the realm of law. “Do not aggress against others or their rightful property”, or “Respect me and what is mine, and I will respect you and what’s yours”. If A doesn’t respect B’s home, then B won’t respect A’s home. If A burns down B’s home, then B burns down A’s home. If A does not respect the “voluntary” slave contracts of B, then B won’t respect the “voluntary” slave contracts of A.
Whether or not A claims to own B is irrelevant. What is relevant is the reciprocal aspect of it. Most people would rather restitution than retribution, but (libertarian) justice is based on (either equal or double) retribution. You threaten the criminal with (equal or double) retribution, and you get him to pay restitution. Most people would prefer this. If a criminal burns down your house and all your possessions, would you rather see his house and possessions burned, or would you rather that he pay to restore your house and possessions? I imagine most people would choose the latter, but you threaten the criminal with retribution in order to receive restitution.
And now it is time to look at Clayton’s claims about the origin of law, and how it might look in a decentralized society. Essentially, the parties to a dispute go to court in order to settle their dispute without further violence. If A murders B, the only reason A agrees to go to court with B’s family is to avoid further violence. Very few murderers would go to court and then agree to their own execution. A murderer goes to court in order to pay off his victim’s family.
So, what happens with a man who violates his “voluntary” slave contract? Well, he and his owner have a dispute. There are some options: the owner can drop the issue, the slave can agree to go back to being a slave, they can fight it out, or they can go to court. We are not interested in the first two options. Now, if they fight it out, the slave may end up winning and killing his master. The slave has more incentive to fight it out than the master, as the slave is fighting for his freedom. The master is fighting for what he considers a piece of property. He has more to lose.
So let’s say they go to court. Well, the slave is never going to agree to becoming a slave again, as the whole point of going to court is so that he may not be a slave. So, whatever deal they come up with, we can be sure that the slave will be freed, even if he pays some sort of penalty.
I really don’t know what to make of this. You quoted the end of my post, so presumably you read the whole thing. So if you read the whole thing, you would see that the libertarian concept of property is derived from reciprocity. “Respect me and what is mine, and I’ll respect you and what’s yours.” That is the positive form. The negative form is the NAP: “Do not aggress against others or their rightful property.”
So, I guess all I can say to your response is, “Reread my post.”
Then it’s a good thing that this is not my argument.