The non-aggression principle is a justified ethical position

First I'll simply list my position in syllogistic form. Then I will move on to defend each of the individual premises.P1: Any maxim or proposition may only be justified through communicative argumentation.P2: Any norm necessarily presupposed as a pre requisite for argumentation is therefore justified.P3: The NAP is necessarily presupposed as a pre requisite for argumentation.C: The NAP is a justified moral position.Premise 1: Any maxim or proposition may only be justified through communicative argumentation (Axiom of argumentation).If one is to attempt to justify a position, one must argue. This is the short version. If one were to attempt to deny this axiom, then one would necessarily contradict one's self. For to deny the axiom of argumentation, one must actually engage in argumentation and so one is admitting that argumentation is necessary. This action is a performative contradiction in that the propositional content of the statement contradicts the presuppositions one makes in making the statement in the first place. The propositional content is the denial of argumentation as a requisite for justification and the contradiction lies in the fact that the speaker attempts to use argumentation in order to justify that proposition. It is impossible to deny the axiom without also affirming it.Premise 2: Any norm necessarily presupposed as a pre requisite for argumentation is therefore justified.As has been shown, argumentation is necessary to justify any proposition. As such, it must be accepted that any norm necessarily presupposed in order to argue must also be justified. For without accepting and following such a norm, justification is not possible. If one were to posit a proposition which denied the norms necessary for argumentation, it could not possible be rationally defended since in order to do so it would need to affirm the norms necessary for argumentation. To do otherwise is again to fall into performative contradiction.Premise 3: The NAP is necessarily presupposed as a pre requisite for argumentation.When dealing with the possible courses of action one may take, the possibilities are near endless. However, the possible courses of action one may take can be at their very base divided into violent and non-violent actions. One may act violently or may not act violently. Violent behavior will for argumentative purposes be defined synonymously with aggression (defined in the introductory round). If one chooses to take a course of action that involves violent behavior, one must justify that behavior using communicative argumentation (from P1). However, arguing in favor of violence necessarily results in a performative contradiction. Hans Hermann-Hoppe (the founder of discourse ethics of this nature) writes:"Argumentation is a conflict-free way of interacting. Not in the sense that there is always agreement on the things said, but in the sense that as long as argumentation is in progress it is always possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement about the validity of what has been said."[1]When one decides to act violently, one is acting antithetically to the nature of argumentation, which is a conflict free manner of settling disputes. When one has a dispute with someone else, this dispute may be resolved either by violence and force or by arguing and coming to a conclusion as to which party is correct in the matter. If one decides to use violence to settle a dispute, they cannot also use argumentation and so the two types of action are conceptually distinct. Since violence is conceptually antithetical to argumentation, argumentation in favor of violence cannot be justified since it would necessarily deny the norm (argumentation) necessary for justification.Conclusion: The NAP is a justified moral position.Since the argument presented is valid (in that its premises necessitate the conclusion) and the individual premises making up this argument have been shown to be true, the only rational option is that the NAP is a justified moral position.[1] http://library.mises.org... Hans Herman-Hoppe, Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. Pg 158.