Things I don't believe: non-aggression principle

I have said previously that I am not a libertarian. This is not only on practical grounds (though how could I really object on practical grounds, as no country has even been libertarian), but also on philosophical grounds.

I know there are a lot of ideas that go into libertarianism, but I disagree with the lynchpin that they seem to think everybody will agree to: the non-aggression principle. Roughly speaking, they define aggression as "the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another" and state that aggression is always morally illegitimate.

It might not be completely incoherent, but it is as the basis of a political system based on property rights, as the NAP inherently conflicts with the notion of property. Property, after all, is theft. Whatever account used for a theory of property, "aggression" is inescapable. This punches a big hole in reconciling theories of property with political systems built on the absolute theory of non-aggression.

But the second an absolute non-aggression principle is abandoned, then we have to concern ourselves with other criteria for a "just" state. Or, even if the criteria becomes a minimum of coercion, then it takes quite a lot of arguing to claim that the minimum of coercion in society (where property ownership is a type of coercion) occurs when government is at a libertarian minimum of sorts. Perhaps the minimum is achieved in a liberal Scandinavian-style welfare state because individual friction is reduced when few are starving or homeless or lacking medical care. This is not necessarily an argument against the NAP, but it's suggestive that a lot more work needs to be done that, frankly, libertarians are not doing.

I propose instead of the the "non-aggression principle" the "Thrasymachus principle" or "maximum aggression principle": aggression is awesome and should be used to make a just society.