Let's face it, the non-aggression principle (NAP) is not that difficult to understand. The NAP simply states that because you own your body, it is wrong for another to violate your person (your life) or your property (the fruit of your labor). One has to wonder who would actually disagree with that. Who is actually out there advocating for slavery and theft (apart from the slave owners and thieves)? Who is declaring, "I believe my person and property should be violated!" People generally don't advocate for those because people instinctually understand the NAP to be a valid principle for life. In short, people generally understand that it is wrong to hurt people or take their stuff.
Yet, in the face of this basic truth there has been increasing resistance to it by constitutionalists and libertarian-leaning conservatives. They insist that the NAP is not a general statement of truth, but is instead just a general guideline. Then, having watered down the NAP, they make the case for a constitutional government. That sets the stage for this post, because the arguments used by constitutionalists against a voluntary society are generally the same arguments used by voluntaryists against the concept of a constitutional republic. As such, it is worth our time to briefly consider on that basis who has the stronger argument.
The Constitutionalist
Constitutionalists of today make the same arguments as the classical liberals of old. They believe in natural rights as defined by John Locke and others. This is no different from principled libertarians who also hold to natural rights. What makes the constitutionalist different from the libertarian is that the constitutionalist believes that the best way to protect life, liberty, and property (e.g. your rights) is with a small government which is democratically elected by the people and limited in scope by its constitution (e.g. a constitutional republic).
The Voluntaryist
Voluntaryists (or libertarians or agorists or anarcho-capitalists... choose your term) believe the NAP to be a basic truth of life (e.g. nobody has the right to aggress against your or your property) and as such they do not make an exception for even a small government. The voluntaryist believes our rights are best protected by ourselves on the free market.
The Constitutional Argument
So now we come to the meat of this post. While most constitutionalists will say they agree with voluntaryists in principle, they still make a utilitarian case against voluntaryism. Their arguments usually come down to this:
I like the idea of a voluntary society, but it would only work if everybody accepted the NAP. If there are people who don't accept the NAP as a rule, then the entire system would fall apart and nobody's rights would be protected.
So, the Constitutionalist's assumption is that voluntaryism depends on everybody accepting the NAP as a rule for life. This means that if everyone agrees that it is wrong to harm you or your property, then voluntaryism is fine. But if anyone does not care about the NAP and instead wants to hurt you or take your property, then the system will fall apart.
You might be surprised to know that the voluntaryist argument against a constitutional republic is almost identical to the argument used by constitutionalists against voluntaryism.
The Voluntaryist Argument
Voluntaryists most often make arguments of principle against statist systems (whether small minarchist or large socialist systems), but it is often just as easy to make utilitarian arguments against those systems. In response to constitutionalists, the voluntaryist's argument often comes down to this:
I like the idea of a constitutional republic, where the government is strictly limited and only exists to keep us and our property safe so we can freely go about living our lives. The problem is that if there are people who don't accept or respect the Constitution, then the entire system falls apart and nobody's rights are protected.
Who Has The Stronger Argument?
So, is it more likely that people will be convinced to accept the NAP or the Constitution as a rule? According the constitutionalist, voluntaryism depends on everyone accepting the NAP. And according to the voluntaryist, constitutionalism depends on everyone accepting the constitution. So, it comes down to the question I just asked: is it more likely that people will be convinced to accept the NAP or the Constitution as a rule? The answer to that question would determine which system is most viable... right?
The Wrong Question
I contend that the question itself is false because it relies on a false assumption. It is true that a constitutional system only works if the majority of people accept and respect constitution, but it is not true that a voluntaryist system would only work if everybody accepts the NAP.
The government is an organization which has a monopoly on force and justice. This is not necessarily a problem if the government only uses that power to stop people from hurting you. But, an organization with monopoly power over the populace is a magnet for ambitious people and people who want to use that power for their own benefit and profit.
If a constitution was alive and could speak and fight for itself, then it could stop those people. But, as it turns out, the constitution itself is only a piece of paper which people promise to respect. It only has power as long as people accept it as a rule.
So, a constitutional system is inherently left at the mercy of ambitious and greedy people. Democratic elections are meant to stop this by somewhat decentralizing power, but if the majority of the electorate no longer respects the constitution, then they can elect those bad people into office.
Then, once those bad people are in office, what can people do? When those officials vote to take our property, to limit our rights, to tell us what we can and cannot do, what can we do to secure our rights from them? Their answer is simple, vote! But as we have seen from history, having a vote is a sorry replacement for actual freedom. The other answer is mass education, convincing people to accept and respect the constitution once again. Theoretically this could work. But, in practice, it never does since the people who are drawn to political office are those who are drawn to power, and those who are most interested in freedom are coincidentally the most disinterested in ruling over others. This does not mean that there are no good people in politics, but this has been shown to be a general truth throughout history.
So, that covers the weakness of a constitutional republic, but what is the false assumption I mentioned when it comes to a voluntaryist society?
In A Voluntary Society, You Protect Your Rights
Unlike in a constitutional republic where your rights depend on everybody accepting something (the constitution, in that case) to work, in a voluntaryist society your rights are NOT dependent on anyone accepting anything.
The NAP is not a rule that must be accepted by everyone in order for society to function. A voluntary society does not depend on everybody accepting and respecting the NAP. Instead, a voluntary society simply depends on people looking out for their own self-interest.
Human Nature
Human nature causes us to do what best benefits ourselves. This is sometimes called greed, but that is just a distinction of measure. We tend to look out for ourselves. You don't have to accept or even have any knowledge of the NAP in order to do everything in your power to keep yourself and your possessions from harm. You simply have to be human.
While a government system provides a means for one group of people to control another, in a voluntaryist system there is no means like that. This means that while self-interest would (given the opportunity) drive an ambitious person into government office, in a voluntary society it would drive an ambitious person into the free market. Without government force, they would have to compete on the free market using the power of persuasion.
Just as human nature drives us today to to what best benefits us, in a future voluntaryist society our human nature would do the same. It would drive us to create, build, and work in order to make a living for ourselves. It would drive us to purchase good home, property, and life insurance on the free market. And, without government providing police and fire services, those insurance companies would likely offer services (or incentivize private purchase of them) like those in order to protect their investment. For example, it would make more sense for your home insurance company to provide fire protection services than to pay out potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in response to your home burning down. But, I could go down this road forever. My point is simply that human nature driving us to protect our lives, property and investments on the free market is enough. People already do this by default and do not need to know of or accept the NAP as a rule to already be living it out.
But, what about those who want to make their living at the expense of others? What about those who have no respect for the lives or property of others? Would they have free reign in a voluntary society?
The simple answer to the question is no. The majority of people by default do not believe it is ok to hurt other people and take their stuff. It is a small minority of people who believe such.
In a voluntary society, these people would be the edge cases which the rest of us would have to look out for. These would be the thieves and murderers which we would purchase protection or other services to guard ourselves against.
But just because there are people who feel this way does not mean the system will fail.
In a state system where our rights depend on a majority of people respecting a piece of paper, our rights end up depending on our neighbors. We live at the expense of those who disagree with us. It does not matter how deeply we respect the constitution if our neighbors vote against it or if politicians simply ignore it.
In a voluntary system, if we are worried about people taking our stuff, we look for services on the free market to protect against that. If we are worried about people hurting our bodies, we purchase goods or services to guard against that.
Conclusion
While it is true that a constitutional system depends on the majority of people accepting the constitution as a hard rule, it is not true that a voluntaryist system depends on people accepting the NAP as a hard rule. In a voluntary system, it does not even matter if people know what the NAP is. Rather, a voluntary system depends on people doing what they already do best, which is look out for their own self interests. And as for the edge cases, as in those who are out to hurt you and your property, you would have the entire free market of goods and services available to you so you could make the best decisions for protecting your life, your family, and your property.