In last post, I should have expressed more how much i disagree, and that i did have criticism against that site, but thought they were off topic.I did get seduced into giving a little of my criticisms, though. We could make a thread for criticizing it, but utabintarbo having many views in common with it(not sure to what extend), we already indirectly criticized it quiet a bit.
Even assuming having only-self-interest as a desirable goal, the website assumes a lot about how large numbers of people behaving with self-interest behave collectively. It considers incarceration a example of 'initiation of force', but also says the government should sell the land it does not need. Where do people without money go then? No public areas, and if some people are nice enough to allow the poor on their space, there might not be enough space to allow people to move around. (AKA incarceration)

@bns, hmm i found the website interesting despite of the disagreeable presumptions(many of which where not noted either), and some things that dont make sense. The three axioms' definition is a bit strange, probably because of the strange definition of axiom, which seems to go against what a regular definition of an axiom is, and makes axioms requires proof in the first. (It cannot be combined with the 'regular' definition without taking precedence over the 'regular axiom')