@full-steem-ahead

ofcourse the NAP can be disputed. I am voluntaryist myself and I can see it's limitations. Read the part in the text where i bring the example with a NAP trader using the "legal" way to scam the market that might result in somebody's indirect death.

So initiation takes a totally different spin when you are at the other end of the rope. Voluntaryism really doesn't offer any real solutions unless people sit around and decide what constitutes violence, direct and indirect.

my example:
"In our crypto world, an an-cap bitcoin exchange-whale might steal another person’s money through a "legal" scam, disabling one’s livelihood that might even bring death to their sick child. Is it justifiable for the victim to go and kill the scammer when the first just exploited the market? How does the victim perceive the market and its dangers? Can we all agree whether what occurred between these two people was moral or immoral?"