Does it always permit violence, torture and killing (as long as it's "defensive")? That seems like a pretty egregious flaw in the theory that I thought libertarians might try to amend.
It is actually very simple. I support non aggression because that is what I want for myself. I cannot expect something for myself I do not support for others. On the other hand if you do attempt violence against me, I will defend myself with unreasonable and overwhelming force.... and that is what I would expect from others.....
To clarify our terms: is the NAP just some kind of personal code or is it the theoretical basis for a libertarian legal system?
So under the NAP, I would be allowed to drive around town with a truck full of nitroglycerin, correct? I haven't aggressed against anyone unless it explodes. So I am not violating the NAP by doing so, which means I should be permitted to do it.
This is why libertarianism is not a feasible ideology. Sure it's a good theory on paper but cannot be practiced in real life. It's one of a number of ideologies that just simply do not work. It's why you have never seen a libertarian society or an anarchist society, or any of a number of other ones.
Actually you are because that is potentially quite dangerous. But you knew this, which is why you filled the truck with nitro instead of fertilizer. The non-aggression principle is a moral principle, which means that it's something that you personally try to live up to. For a society, it's not perfect, but it is an attempt to be virtuous. Isn't this better than what we have now, which is to start pulling out guns and shooting at you as you drive around in your truck full of nitro? You're not being a nice guy, the people with guns are trying to protect themselves by taking you out before your dangerous behavior results in violence. What's the perfect society? I can find a problem with the one we have now, so we now have two options. There are others, of course, but I don't know of any which would put a stop to somebody driving a truck filled with nitroglycerine. In other words, you're nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.
The central problem with libertarianism is that it assumes most people are rational actors. Most aren't. There's a similar problem with capitalism, but that works (in a typically very corrupted form) only because it panders well to the darker elements of human nature. In practice, we end up with each country adopting a different level of liberty that is tailored to fit the strengths and weaknesses of the predominant culture.
Yes of course and any successful society will contain elements from many ideologies such as libertarianism and socialism and democracies. It is when one of these become predominant that we begin to see fissures erupt. It is one of the reasons why the founders created a two party system which ensures constant changes of power.
Checks and balances certainly help, although the 2 party system was something that developed with a lot of reluctance. A lot of the Founders despised the concept of political parties. The problem with that system now is how similar the 2 parties are on certain things.
