I feel like the discussion has digressed somehow.
How about you pick whatever word you want to describe an attempt to be as peaceful as possible, to stop thinking in terms of justifications for using violence and instead to be thinking in terms of how to avoid violence, possibly in very creative and innovative ways, regardless of whether it's justified by the NAP. If "pacifism" doesn't work for you, that's fine. I'm not married to words.
The thing about justification systems is they have nothing to do with what's smart to do in the big scheme of things. What disturbs me about the NAP, when it is held up as this perfect shining example of morality, is that it's almost applied like a formula. If we start following this formula, people have faith that it will start purifying the world of "evil". If we start picking off the aggressive people, there will only be sane, reasonable, NAP people left and the world will achieve peace. It fails to recognize what is readily apparent if you pay attention-- that violence begets violence. We don't live in a mathematical world of super-logical androids. We live in a world of emotional, reactive people, libertarians included. When someone acts with violence, they usually feel it's justified. Then someone else feels justified to respond with violence. There can, and will, be disagreements about what particular act is defensive or aggressive.
When someone is obsessive about the NAP, I see someone who's angry and is looking for an excuse to be violent. I'll be looking for every possibility to avoid violence. Again, call that what you want. My thought is, NAP, sure, at a minimum, but we can do better.