Sooo... you're not making a case against NAP with point 1.?
2. No: Rich entities and the checkerboard syndrome. Presumably, rich entities exist in NAP-land, and everything about NAP encourages the checkerboard effect.
I don't know what checkerboard syndrome is. link?
How does NAP lead to the environment being destroyed by edge effects? If you own land and someones actions are damaging your property, you enter arbitration for damages. I don't see how this is a problem with NAP.
How does initiating force prevent environmental destruction?
3. No. Think and research harder, and please don't make me repeat myself fifty times....
I feel the same way about you.
People pay for the protection of their own property and any natural resources there of. Why is violence necessary?
4. No. Pull your head out of the libertarian economics book and increase your knowledge. Again, I don't want to repeat myself, especially to deaf ears....
Is it your position then, that the initiation of force will prevent resource depletion?
Really, answer the question, Yes or No, and back it up with reasoning. This kind of response gets us no where. Just saying "your wrong, read a book" is a cop out.
Resources will be used because we want to use them. How is it productive or desirable to use force to prevent the consumption of resources that people wish to consume? If it's a matter of efficiency then I make the case that voluntary trade is more efficient than coercive trade. If you disagree with this premise, please say so and why.
5. No. Humans are far from consistent....
True, but this is a non-sequiter. humans establish social customs in all facets of life. We shake hands when we greet. we put the fork on the left and the knife on the right. We talk the same language. This is not achieved through force. though these customs may vary from culture to culture, still, within a culture, social standards emerge. I see no reason why they should not emerge with regard to "social etiquette when occupying others property".
You think that people other than the property owner should use force to impose their own standard of behavior for people on their property?
6. So you say. Where have you seen this in action?...
seen what? A lawsuit happy state or a free society where laws are determined by the market?
For the first, pretty much every state is like this. The number of laws and lawyers just keeps growing.
For the second, see Lex mercatoria.
Besides, the point is that this is how the market functions in general; the customer is always right. If you are in the business of arbitration or dispute resolution, you will have "laws" that your customers think are best, if not you go out of business. If the customer wants lots of laws and law suits then this is what they will have and vice versa.
7. The market operates on limited knowledge, and more precisely, within the entire market are sub markets composed of a limited set of individuals primarily interested in satisfying their own interests by using a limited set of knowledge. Oh my gosh, please go study my comments in another recent thread....
The knowledge of the market is enshrined in the price of all goods and services. This is all the knowledge the market requires to make efficient economic decisions. Do you agree with this?
Will it be tolls or something else? I don't know. Voluntary trade will most certainly find a more optimal solution to transportation than a bureaucrat with a gun.
8. Wealth is relative to what is available to you. So many factors, and such a simple little reply you made....
Seems you don't actually have a response and are hiding behind your dismissive comments. Your whole post was full of "simple little replys".
I addressed the point about paying for protection. Sure wealth is relative, so what? It still costs more to protect your property when there is no competitive market for protection. This applies for everyone, regardless of wealth available. Do you dispute this?
As to your other post. What assumptions about the free market have I made that are false? Let's get to the heart of the matter here.