It frightens the modern (and more so the post-modern) to be confronted with the apriori. For he named has been reared in a time when things were so good that people began to talk as if inquiry were endless and open and almost anything up for debate. And indeed, there is much that is right here. But rarely is it the case that what is wrong stands out so clearly. We will normally find it camoflauged by the half right, the kinda right, the almost right.
Indeed openness and liberty are to be valued. The Puritanical LIBERTARIAN knows this well (or at least claims to). But we should not get carried away. Exactly what is free? And, is this up for debate? It is not dear reader. To be sure is one thing. To have discourse to offer the confused is another.
The modern (or his progeny the post-modern) has grown up under two types of tutelage: empiricism and historicism. Empiricsm has told him that all justification of claims are open to further experience and thus eternally falsifiable. Historicism has treated the justification of claims to be unending and circular, without foundation. So, in matters of everything he has been taught to say “Maybe”.
Note that the wishy-washy-modern (or postmodern who is in worse condition because more fragile and sensitive to being disagreed with though not sensitive to disagreeing) has challenged a claim with a counter-claim. Implied is the “maybe-not”.
What do claim and counter-claim imply? Disagreement. What does disagreement imply? That two distinct alive bodies have property rights over these minds, tongues, voices such that they are free to assert without facing aggression. Had they not property right presupposed would be the asking of permission before use.
What? Is all that implied? And more dear reader. But it is enough. In order to get disagreement started the non-aggression principle must hold. Else there is only biding time strategically ready with aggression.
Not everything is up for grabs. It is presupposed by openness and debate that some thing are not. What is not up for debate? Aggression. What is not up for debate? Taxation. Monetary debasement. Fractional-reserve banking. Contract or production regulation. Forced care of others.
The non-aggression principle, property rights, homesteading are all presupposed apriori by the engagement in disagreement and debate.