There is much it "does not say". Other philosophies consider how to determine truth and how to determine beauty. How does the NAP come down on these items?

Why does one philosophy have to cover every facet of your life?
That's like one set of rules for baseball and football.
And what does your political philosophy have to do with beauty?
Come to think of it, what does politics have to do with truth? :lol:

We're just trying to figure out how much it applies to.

Back to the neighbor, let's say your friends appoint agents to operate for them and stop the guy, but he says he was driving in a safe manner, and appoints bigger agents with bigger guns to represent him. In the NAP, who decides which side is right?

The NAP doesn't prevent having a judiciary

A judiciary decides who's right. Who's on the judiciary?

Hopefully non-partial judges who are familiar not only with the rule of law, but with natural law. One that knows the limitations on the powers of the government and one who knows government may never have any powers that we as individuals don't have to grant to it.

Who decides who is on the judiciary?

The last time I checked, some judges were elected, while others were appointed.

What does the NAP tell you about who is on the judiciary?

It says they were either elected or appointed to judge to settle disputes, and to fairly and ethically determine whether or not a punishment fits a crime when a jury finds that a crime has been committed. Again, a crime has only been committed when the person, rights, or property of a non-consenting other have been physically violated, harmed, or endangered. The judge and jury also have a duty to judge not only the merits of the case, but also the fairness of the law itself.

The judiciary is elected or appointed. What if the judiciary does not act in accordance with the NAP?

Is that when we get to put them up against the wall, shoot them, and start over?

Under the NAP, what if the judiciary does not act in accordance with the NAP?

I suppose then you don't vote for him next time, or you don't vote for those who appointed him. If his actions are overtly egregious, I suppose you could try to get him disbarred, or fired. If he is using force to violate the rights, property, or person of someone who has not committed a crime (as defined earlier), I suppose you could use force or violence in your own defense against the judge or those following his orders, though I tend to try to solve things peacefully until violence is used against me. Then I don't care whether you're wearing a uniform or not. Nobody is above an ass kicking.

I'm sorry, are you talking about now you as a NAP user, apply yourself to the present government? Or are you talking about the government that would result from application of the NAP? I am more interested in the latter.