That's very interesting. What was the flaw that you discovered with his reasoning?
I never finished it. I started reading it, couldn't make much sense of it and gave up. Nobody else has been able to give me a good summary of the argument.
I also notice that nobody has attacked my argument head on so I'm guessing they can't?
I see the right to equal treatment as being important. Some people say the NAP entitles you to discriminate on grounds of race or religion in who you do business with and whom you hire.
Is that your interpretation of the NAP?