How isn't that what is meant by reciprocal? This is from Black's Law Dictionary 5th Ed.:

reciprocal, adj. (16c)
1. Directed by each toward the other or others; mutual (reciprocal trusts).
2. Bilateral (a reciprocal contract).
3. Corresponding; equivalent (reciprocal discovery).

Since this is a discussion of legal responsibilities and entitlements, there's only one relevant meaning for reciprocal. We're not talking about math, right? Reciprocal means both parties extend the same to the other, and that if one party doesn't do so, the other party isn't required to do the same.

This is precisely why it's important to understand the underlying principle beneath non-aggression: the right to not consent. Since this is, in fact, a right, you're arguing that the right to not consent must be absolute. If that's the case, then self-defense can never be justifiable.

We're on the same side, here. If I gave you the impression I'm arguing with you that non-aggression is incorrect, that wasn't my intention. You're also correct about what you said about phrasing in the other post. Put more precisely (which I should have done), you have a right not to consent - known more commonly as the right to private property ownership.