I’ve been stewing for a good long while on this thread. (1.5 years?! LOL)
the foundation concept of anarcho-capitalism is the NAP
It seems to me that the idea of self-ownership is even more foundational than the NAP.
In fact, the NAP derives logically from the concept of self-ownership. Is this not correct?
And this is why the determination of self-ownership is so critical.
With all these edge cases (discussed above), the problem is whether or not someone really has self-ownership — and who can make such a determination.
Thus, the means by which we determine self-ownership is even more fundamental than the NAP.
But in all the above discussion, the only practical means were basically leaving the question to the community, following its customs and norms. That seems entirely inadequate.
And it doesn’t help to say the foundation is still the NAP. That is circular reasoning, as I have just illustrated.
To have a consistent logical foundation here, the individual himself or herself must always unilaterally have self-ownership, and does not require anyone else’s permission or consent to assert this. However, this leads to many obvious conundrums described in the thread above.