[Dead Corpse]

So you are admitting to limited intelligence and imagination? For someone who can make a yumi from scratch, I find this hard to believe.

For any thinking, reasoning being... there are always options other than initiating force, fraud, or theft.

You also leave out restitution for involuntary trespasses. If I fall off a balcony, and save myself by landing on your balcony. I owe you rent and damages for however long I was on your property without your consent. Ethically, I would demand to pay the restitution to balance the score. Ethically, you could not refuse to accept it.

Same would go if I was crossing the desert and came upon your well. I would owe you restitution for taking your water. Trade can be worked out and ethical parties on both sides would be able to reach a commodation. In fact, lucrative trade businesses could arise from providing such services to those in need.

As I said, it isn't a failure of the philosophy. It's a failure to apply it correctly.

[King Prout]

you are not taking into account exigent immediate need and human intransigence. I will put it in the starkest terms possible.

Bob has food and an uncharitable miserly nature.
Jim has a dire immediate need of food... and has a gun.
Bob refuses to part with food for payment or promise of payment.
Jim blows Bob's head off and eats.
I can't blame Jim - he did what he needed to do to survive.

[King Prout]

in sum, here's the error in over-application of a benign philosophy:

For any thinking, reasoning being... there are always options other than initiating force, fraud, or theft.

ah... no, not really. usually, yes. but not always.