From my friend Curt Doolittle. (He is right.)
WHY? THE FALLACY OF NON AGGRESSION AS JUSTIFICATION.
Why would you develop an ethics of non-aggression rather than an ethic of non-theft, for a philosophical framework that purports to reduce all right to property rights, for some reason other than legitimizing deception and forbidding retaliation for deception?
You see, cosmopolitanism is merely a philosophical framework for justificationism.
Theft is aggression. Deception is fraud, which is aggression. The concept is non-initiation of force. What you call retaliation would not be the initiation of force. Do some reading before you make useless posts. You are talking about pacifism. That is why we call it non-aggression, not non-violence, or non-self defense.