If you owned your body you would be allowed to put whatever you want in it. If you owned what you produced it would not be okay for anyone to take it by force. If you owned your land you wouldn't have to pay some one property taxes which is essentially rent.

We have police that spend most of their time endangering people with things like no knock raids, check points and disrupting traffic, a court system that can only be used by people who have the time and money to defend themselves and as such is completely useless to the poor who need it most, and jails that are filled with non violent offenders who are being supported by stealing the wealth from the productive.

How many psychopaths do you think there are out there to justify this level of inefficiency?

How about we privatize security forces to actually show up when a crime is in progress to stop it, instead of showing up afterwards to file a report and clean up the mess. If you have any knowledge about how a free market works you know that if one security force starts abusing its customers they are going to hire someone else.

How about an arbitration company that knows if they don't do their best to judge fairly you will subscribe to a different company, and in the process give them negative reviews for any other patrons to judge fairly?

If a man's mind is his method of survival, stop trying to take that away. If you want a government, subscribe to one and leave me out of it.

It has a police, a court system, and jails.

How does the government address those issues?

The largest problem I see with NAP, particularly with complete free market anarchy is that it neglects portions of reality that it has no answers for. The best example of that neglect of reality is the existence of socio and psycho-paths. At the extreme, those are individuals not seeking value - they're seeking destruction. To a large extent, AGW and Animal Rights groups fall within that definition as do many formalized religions. Destructive insanity cannot be addressed in a NAP only environment.

Without some form of objective government (not some gang's whim) how am I to own property? As some wit once said, "If you cannot OWN property, then you ARE property." I wonder who said that? Hold on a minute while I look. ...

Perhaps that wit was me. The only references to it that I can find in a brief search are my own, viz.: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

None of this makes any sense unless you have an enforcement mechanism. That means you have a government - Period.

The NAP is a poor substitute for Locke's natural rights. It does not explain property, or if you have property, or why you have legitimate property rights, it does not explain how contracts are created, why they can be created, how they will be interpreted. The NAP says nothing about reason. It is a intellectually lazy short cut argument for freedom and as a result will only result in disaster.

Property rights can be done with a common protection contract among neighbors, me and you disagree about IP, but I do hope to talk about that later. And as for the irrational people freaking out about CO2.... I think the worst thing you could do is give them all the guns and let them make the laws.

I do understand that simply stating "I won't hurt you if you don't hurt me," isn't a solid foundation, but the book universally preferable behavior does a good job of expanding a philosophical foundation that originated with NAP.

Yes, but this is not answered by the non-aggression policy, neither IP rights, neither property rights and neither is how to deal with irrational people who think creating CO2 is destroying the world.

There are no rules, just contracts, and those contacts are just as enforceable under anarchy as they would be under any particular government.

DDT and AGW are not issues, they are a blend of opinions and facts. If you are an objectivist you promote man's ability to reason for himself what is beneficial to him. If someone thinks DDT or AGW is a problem they can feel free to persuade others to join them in their cause, having a government does nothing but tell people they are too dumb to decide for themselves on such issues.

Nonsense. If they are enforceable their are rules and government. If these are not enforceable then they are not rules.

The non-aggression principle is a lazy attempt to short cut philosophy and fails miserably. For instance, it does not explain how to deal with the DDT issue or AGW.

Libertarians have been intellectually lazy and attempted to short cut philosophy. The result has been a disaster where some Libertarians think it is okay to have sex with minors, others talk about marxist libertarianism.

Libertarians are trying to build a skyscraper without a foundation.

Maybe this will make it clearer for you:

Under anarchy there are no rules, only a voluntarily agreed to code of conduct, adhered to but not enforced - you can opt out anytime and suffer the consequences, if any. A voluntary code of conduct in winter time may be to remove your shoes at the entrance to a home. You can choose not to, but will likely not be on the guest list next week. This is not force, just non-aggressive ostracism.