The year was 1957 and Ayn Rand had released the novel "Atlas Shrugged." Within its covers and spine were the words "no man shall initiate or threaten to initiate force on others." This was the siren call of one John Galt and his manifesto as he talked to the entire Nation over their radios. He was proclaiming the Non-Initiation of Coercion or Force/Fraud/threat of principle. It was a core part of Ayn Rand's Objectivism and it was out in the late 50's.
Ten years later at the end of the 60's after years of people finding Ayn Rand's vision somehow an immoral swamp due to its virtue of Selfishness a movement emerged. It had a new name it called itself "libertarian." It was formed into a party in 1971 with the help of people like Fritz Marshall, David Nolan, Murray Rothbard and James Hospers. Starting by meeting in the homes of the founding members in circles of intellectualism or so-called intellectualism depending on whom is asked.
The conclusion to these meetings was the beginning of a new movement, but, not new ideas. Rather old ideas that went back to Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism. A movement and Party based around the following statement of principles;
"I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."
In other words the Non-Initiation of Coercion Principle, or NAP or NFIP put forth by John Galt and Ayn Rand's Objectivism ten years earlier. However, this time all context was removed and all ideas about anything other than force was removed from the fundamentals of its philosophy. Gone was the idea that coercion was evil due to it being anti-life, anti-reason, anti-mind and anti-human. That it sat on a broader moral philosophy. Instead it was made axiomatic and to be taken on faith without evidence as some sort of "mystical given." Reason be damned as long as you were peaceful. Also, selfishness fuck that.
Of course the NIFP only made sense because it had evidence behind it and rational ideas. It had reason behind it and facts of existence one could turn to. To explain the NIFP one needs to come to the conclusion using reason and facts of logic. It cannot be taken on faith that is anti-reason and means one is not using their higher cognitive rational adaptive modules they have adopted in their brain. They are acting like a naive child that believes in Santa Clause or a White bearded man in the sky on faith and immature. They are not acting even in a way of making rational consensual decisions and giving into a delusion.
Which means that libertarianism is like a faith and almost more like the "cult" than the very Objectivism that gets called as "cult" by anti-Objectivist libertarians. One needs to be presented with actual evidence and not some "on faith" axiom of non-aggression. This is the problem with the core of the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Parties. They are built on subjectivism and "faith" in their own dogma from the very beginning. Whereas Objectivism is literally "the anti-cult" mentality and anti-all delusional views.
However, following the creation of a movement based in its credo and core on Objectivism this very movement and Party has gone onto hating on the very origins of its own credo. Stating objectivism is a cult and like a religion. Going so far as to call a virtue of selfishness a dangerous and chaos causing incitement to the lowest parts of man. Even though if it was in the founders long term self-interest beginning the libertarian movement was the most selfish act the founders could have done. Their own actions prove that virtue they hate so much as their views are now long spread.
They have let in so many people that are anti-reason and OK with bullshit and do not care this is a big issue. However, they always have as they had no metric of what the principles were other than not initiating force. NAP in the end is a good thing and should be spread as a legal rule. However, it is more than that it is a moral rule set. Which the libertarian movement from the beginning said NAP was about law and morals were subjective. Which began the moment they let in the Anarcho-Capitalists led into the movement by Rothbard; whom took Objectivisms NAP and said it proved anarchism was the way. When Non-initiation of force was always meant to be enforced by limited governments.
The hate on Objectivism within the libertarian movement is evidence of the movement being the ungrateful step-child of Objectivism. Which is a full philosophy for living a flourishing life as Man Qua Man or the human animal on Earth. However, most importantly is predicated on reason and living in reality. Which anarchism goes totally against; all anarchism Anarcho-capitalism or anarchy-syndicalism none of them are workable in reality. They all lead to mob rule and are the opposite of Rights respecting. Which libertarians claim to be, but, fail to provide rational reasons to believe.
