Full disclosure - I didn't read 100% of this post, so please forgive me if I failed to fully appreciate all you said here.
However, one very important aspect of morality that is objective is its' universal nature. The objective logic of the Non Aggression Principle cannot be disputed (but I'm sure you'll try).
Let's use an extreme form of aggression like murder. Aside from people who want to commit suicide (and if they really want to they can do that on their own anyway) every healthy person wants to live. That's about as universal as it gets. So by extension it's logical and universal to prohibit aggression for this reason. Masochists and pain lovers are not exempted, they have the right to that if they wish, as long as others are not forced to provide it. It is when one being coerces, manipulates (without full disclosure), or outright forces their will upon another that the initiation of force becomes immoral.
I truly hope one day you will come to realize this basic understanding of morality and the fundamental principles that allow you to be you and me to be me, as individuals free to pursue or own path in life without intimidation or aggression from others.
@full-steem-ahead
ofcourse the NAP can be disputed. I am voluntaryist myself and I can see it's limitations. Read the part in the text where i bring the example with a NAP trader using the "legal" way to scam the market that might result in somebody's indirect death.
So initiation takes a totally different spin when you are at the other end of the rope. Voluntaryism really doesn't offer any real solutions unless people sit around and decide what constitutes violence, direct and indirect.
my example:
"In our crypto world, an an-cap bitcoin exchange-whale might steal another person’s money through a "legal" scam, disabling one’s livelihood that might even bring death to their sick child. Is it justifiable for the victim to go and kill the scammer when the first just exploited the market? How does the victim perceive the market and its dangers? Can we all agree whether what occurred between these two people was moral or immoral?"