The Justification of the NAP

The standard value for man necessitates life
- man must act -> Axiom of Action (in order to live)
- or not act (also an action, results in death, cannot value death — obvious contradiction)
Therefore if he does not want to die, his actions must necessarily be towards this standard of life.

Man's time however is scarce, i.e. he has a limit on how long he lives, therefore everything else becomes scarce since he do not have the enough time to do everything regardless if resources are infinite.

This scarcity means man will run into Conflicts i.e. I want to use A and you also want to use A, both cannot happen, it is a contradiction — a conflict.
Law answers how we should deal with these conflicts and there are 3 basic ways to approach them.

1. conflicts should not be avoided (Jungle Law)
2. conflicts should be avoided under certain circumstances, but not always (Mixed Law)
3. conflicts should be avoided (The Non-aggression Principle)

Both 1 & 2 succumb to being reduced to the Primacy of Consciousness fallacy and can be discarded as illogical ethics.

Argument from argument

We also notice that both 1 & 2 at their core is an attempt to justify some form Aggression.
Through, Argumentation Ethics we know that justifying aggression in argumentation is contradictory meaning all law that permits a single form of aggression is resoundingly false.

Let A be Aggression which we know is false
Therefore ~A is Non-Aggression which istrue