>>67994
The NAP is (usually) clearly defined and always applicable. In the theoretical scenario listed above, both parties might be interpreting the NAP the exact same way and the only question is one of who can applicably give consent. Don't try to start an argument on consent I won't respond to it and it's not worth your time to have the same conversation for the 50th time. For all social purposes the NAP is being applied. For most practical purposes, the NAP is being applied because both sides legitimately believe they're enforcing the NAP. The only question is whether the actual literal theory is being applied or not since aggression is taking place. I know >>67996 was joking but it actually is a case of:
>"Dude this is what the theory says and we think it will be applied in 99.9% of situations, but like swindlers and outlaws, we can't control the 0.1% of externalities that could occur that would be NAP violations. That's a Utopian way of thinking."
>"Babe, just because we live in the safest city in the world doesn't mean you should leave your handfun at home. Keep it with you in case something DOES happen."
>>68002
You'd be more likely to have it be the decisions of judges with maybe a regional or international ethics board that reviews court cases from time to time. People voluntarily follow a court in the first place in an AnCap society (they can ignore the court at their own risk of being "excommunicated" from the community unless they can provide evidence for why the court is full of shit). You aren't going to get a pseudo-global-minarchy in the form of a UN-Lite Edition.