[Truth To Power]

Property in land and other natural resources inherently violates the NAP, as already proved, as it purposes to initiate violence against all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.

I think such a reasoning would make any theory of property impossible because if you argue that if someone uses land and others can't use it at the same time is aggression,

That's not my argument. I stated explicitly that it is aggression when you forcibly deprive someone of what they would otherwise have been at liberty to use -- i.e., natural resources like land.

then I believe that you must also argue that if someone eats an apple and others can't eat that apple anymore, then that also must be aggression.

No. There are two main cases: you produced the apple by growing it, or you picked a wild apple. If you produced it, when you eat it you do not deprive anyone of anything they would otherwise have had, because it only existed in the first place thanks to your efforts in growing it. The same reasoning applies to all products. The second case is more complex. If you picked a wild apple when no one else wanted it, you have violated no one's rights and it is not aggression. To pick it when someone else wants it is the problem. In that case, you owe them compensation for depriving them of an opportunity they wanted and would otherwise have been at liberty to use.

This seems problematic because people wouldn't be able to do anything because everything would be aggression.

False as proved above.

Furthermore, a land-value tax is not solution.

Yes, it is, as long as it includes just compensation.

If someone is using the land and pays a land value tax to the government, how does solve the problem of aggression?

The government has to be a legitimate, democratic one that exists to secure and reconcile the equal of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. There is no way to reconcile the right to liberty with the right to property in fixed improvements except land value taxation (or an equivalent system) and a universal personal exemption therefrom.

If we assume that the person who uses the land is aggressing against me, then this aggression does not go away if he pays a third party.

Yes, it does, when the third party in turn justly compensates all who are thus deprived of their liberty.

The only way that there would be no aggression is when I give consent for my land to be in use.

"Your" land?? What would make it "your" land but aggression? As soon as you say, "my land," you are committing aggression against all who would otherwise be at liberty to use that land.

If you say land ownership is aggression against everyone else, then everyone else must unanimously agree to someone using the land.

No, because unanimity is not required for legitimate government to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all. People can only use so much land, so they can't just deprive others of it like dogs in the manger. There has to be a way to reconcile the equal rights of all to use what nature provided for all. That way is LVT + UIE.

Why would majority be sufficient?

It's the system of secure rights and just compensation that is sufficient, not the will of a majority.

When has there ever existed property in land except under government, or by the initiative of people who were accustomed to it, and knew that if they could just get the land recognized as their property, they'd be able to take everything from everyone else?

Just because something hasn't happened in the past, does not make it impossible.

I didn't say it was impossible. But it self-evidently isn't natural or necessary.

[Scheherazade]

Are there any Anarcho capitalists left on PoFo?

I think there are more members of PETA than their are ancaps.

[Scheherazade]

Ancap ideology can be easily demolished with a simple logic test.

If aggression against non-consenting individuals is "always wrong", then you have no right to speak in a public place, since you create sound-waves which 'aggress' upon others' eardrums without their consent.

So there's no point I see in giving it serious discussion or attention except out of morbid curiousity, like the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche.

[Corpax1]

Ancap ideology can be easily demolished with a simple logic test.

If aggression against non-consenting individuals is "always wrong", then you have no right to speak in a public place, since you create sound-waves which 'aggress' upon others' eardrums without their consent.

So there's no point I see in giving it serious discussion or attention except out of morbid curiousity, like the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche.

Although I am not an Anarcho-Capitalist (I am a dreaded minarchist), it seems reasonable to accuse your argument of being reductio ad absurdum.

In order to cite the non-aggression principle, you still need critical thought to bring yourself to the answer. To use your example - simple speaking would not be aggression in any justifiable sense - however, holding an air horn directly to the ear of someone can do severe damage to ones ear drum.

In order to intelligibly think about the non-aggression principle, one needs to at least be capable of differentiating between common place situations, and extreme, intentionally damaging actions.

One final example - if I see you walking around, light is being absorbed and re-emitted into my eyes from your skin and clothing. This does not damage my eyes in any uncommon way. If you were to forcefully hold a flashlight up to my eyes, that would be aggressive.