That missed 3 points in the first really screwed the pooch . <| sep |> reading all these storys about cyotes , bobcats , bears etc makes me glad that memes aside , at least in australia all i have to worry about are snakes and spiders <| sep |> I understand the conclusions someone can reach if they take the NAP as an axiom , but I ' m having difficulty understanding how or why the NAP is taken as an axiom . From what I can tell , you describe a framework for the legitimacy or desirability of governmental intervention depends on upholding certain axioms , of which the NAP is one . All of the consequences of this that you describe seem cogent to me . But why do we take the NAP as an axiom ? Things like rape are bad . The NAP offers a framework in which obviously bad things like rape are illegal . However , while I would of course rather live with segregated swimming pools than widespread rape , why can ' t I say that segregated swimming pools are also obviously bad and thus deserving of their own antidiscrimination axiom ? Just assuming an exclusively NAPdriven franework and following it logically doesn ' t make the assumption that only the NAP applies valid . Even if we want to say that the NAP follows from some greater morality , we still have to explain how this morality indicts Aggresion but not discrimination .