All libertarian principles are based on the presumption that a person sets goals for themselves, chooses the means to achieve them, analyzes the results, corrects their actions, and so on. Without this, they will not grasp the non-aggression principle or the concept of property, nor will they learn how to negotiate. The exact way in which a person’s purposeful activity unfolds is determined by their planning horizon. They may be guided by immediate needs, or they may make plans ten years ahead, or simply, for example, set aside some reserves for a rainy day without specifying when that rainy day might occur.
And so: a person has built their plans, begun to act to realize them, attracted resources, and agreed to cooperate with a crowd of people—and then died. If we set aside hypotheses about the afterlife, we can assert that they are now indifferent to the fact that their plans were not realized. But this is not a matter of indifference to those around them. Someone was involved in these plans, and now their own plans have gone awry. Someone else simply takes note: everything is vanity, all is a striving after wind, one should live for today.
But even if we exclude unlikely scenarios of sudden death in the prime of life, at the current level of scientific development, a person remains inevitably mortal. Today, they can afford to plan fifty years ahead, knowing they are capable of personally implementing this plan and enjoying the result. In forty years, they may only be able to plan for a decade. Plans that imply personal implementation become increasingly short-term. Eventually, a person reaches a state where simply getting through the day is enough. What is there to negotiate with a person who lives only for today?
Finally, it should not be forgotten that the death that cuts short a person’s plans can be violent. Your plans were a problem for me. No person—no problem. Who mentioned the “NAP”? What is the point of the NAP if following it does not solve the problem, but violating it does?