Redundant?

It works if you are willing to take many other concepts as granted, but in that case you must have already accepted many other premises as granted, which would make it redundant.

The NAP might be trivially true, but there are better defences of libertarianism out there.

I guess I'm not positive of your gist here, but I'll attempt to respond. I don't think it's being stated the NAP is axiomatic, but choosing to violate it does tend to strip one of moral agency.

Many of the claims that it aims to establish depend on other rights which have to be taken for granted in order for the NAP (as envisioned by its' theoreticians) to function.


If it is not axiomatic then it is included in other premises. Those premises do not have to be taken for granted.
Choosing to violate it wouldn't strip one of moral agency but it would make the action-actor immoral.
As I said, at best it's redundant. I guess that a better wording would've been that "at best it's trivially true".

Regardless, even the conception of aggression is terribly defined within it.