i own this miles-long forest on the other side of the country. if you traverse over it you are violating the non-aggression principle.
people who live near the forest and need to use it for resources:
okay...do we have to voluntarily accept this scenario where you arbitrarily own this natural resource, or are you going to utilize a private dispute-settling service to have bounty hunters come and kick our asses if we don't move?
if you don't voluntarily accept my voluntary ownership over this swath of land i'm not using, then yes, i'm gonna call up my private defense force to aggressively remove you on account of your aggression. it's okay though because this defense force is not a coercive state and you can always go somewhere else.
The reason the non-aggression principle is a shitty basis for any kind of political philosophy is that you can use it to justify any position in existence by adjusting what the definition of “aggression” is.
You say authoritarian socialism is impossible, but then what would you call the USSR or similar states?
tbh you’re misunderstanding me. my point is that socialism can’t be anything but libertarian. even the most violent revolutionary form of socialism can be justified by and situated within libertarianism, even the most “authoritarian”-seeming socialist practice is a response to power dynamics that make it an essentially libertarian project. that obviously isn’t to say there aren’t non-socialist responses as well that might be considered authoritarian, but that genuine socialism in my mind can’t be considered authoritarian in any meaningful sense without a good amount of decontextualization and ahistorical nonsense.
i’ve talked about this a bit before but you can actually justify a revolutionary socialism with the non-aggression principle if you put it in these terms and undermine the arguments of “libertarian” capitalists, which is the reverse impossibility, as capitalism is inherently authoritarian and cannot be anything but authoritarian.
by the rules of the non-aggression principle, no libertarian has the right to get mad at you if a car tries to fuck with you at a protest and you respond by smashing in the windshield and slashing the tires, imo
If you believe that freedom does not include the right to break the law, then you believe that freedom means whatever the government wants it to mean, which makes it useless. Even in the most oppressive dictatorship, people are free to do whatever the government wants to let them do.
I’m sick of Libertarians and Ancaps telling me that foreigners have a right to my homeland because something something non-aggression principle. It’s almost as annoying as Leftists telling me “this is for colonialism”.