Good thing someone brought the non-aggression principle up. Personally, I don't believe in it. I mean, I think eventually the society becomes smart enough to understand aggression in any circumstances is both costly and immoral. However, I also recognize that it's a long way to go there. I think before we get there, we'd have to rely on some sort of protection and the monopoly which government has to provide it cannot be a good solution. It is inconceivable how people hate monopolies when it comes to things like smartphones, airlines or even shoes, but when it comes to their own protection the monopoly is taken for granted.

Non-aggression is not no-aggression. To summarize, using my understanding, is that it is unlawful to "aggress" someone until they "aggress" you. Many cultures are based on this concept.

NAP allows for "retaliatory violence" (had aggression but as pointed out below is not the correct usage of the word aggression).

One of the difficulties, as you point out, comes when people don't realize that they are aggressing others. An example being when they attempt to limit who can get married to who (whom?).

Again, there are good intentions behind such aggression (limit the right to use marijuana to protect children) but the results of aggression seem to always lead to more aggression (creation of an illegal drug black market leading to instability in Mexico).

I think you're a bit confused about definitions. You seem to be using "aggression" to refer to violence, when it in fact refers to the initiation of violence. The NAP prohibits the initiation of violence, but not retaliatory violence.

True that.

It sounds like you do believe in the NAP. You just might disagree about how society can or should transition into one that follows it.

If taxation is theft, property is theft. Or in other words: what gives you the right to compel me to defend your property?

> If taxation is theft, property is theft.

Property can never be theft as theft only exists if property exist. You can't steal something if no one can "own" anything.

> what gives you the right to compel me to defend your property?

No one has a right to compel you to do anything.

However, you will act in your best interest. How about I pay you to defend my property?

Or, perhaps it is in both of our interests if we defend each others property. After all, if you let others steal my property, yours will probably be next.

This holds even more true for rights.