While I appreciate the post and discussion of the two principles, you have not adequately represented what the non-aggression principle is. Within the principle, it defines its terms. Aggression is not defined as the somewhat vague, textbook definition that is presented here.
Also, the non-aggression principle is formulated on the basis of accepting the concept of self-ownership and private property as a natural extension of it. So, in the examples that you cited, the perpetrators can certainly be held accountable because their actions were actually "aggression" against the victims, even though they were not intentional acts. In the sense of the NAP, the aggression is judged based on the act against the person or the property, not the intent of the actor. That's a key distinction to be made and it's why the dictionary definition isn't used in the principle.
But the NAP isn't meant to be the sole principle of a given society. It is meant to be understood in conjunction with self-ownership and individual property rights. In any case, it is of course important to open these discussions and to flesh them out in order to improve them, so good job in helping with that.
Would you argue that freedom should be defined simply as being free? Should there be massive and complicated law books filled with definitions or can we generally agree everything falls into property rights and trespassing. I am asking this because simplicity should be the easiest way to Bring people into voluntarism. Not complex definitions. I am pretty sure all voluntaryists agree on not trespassing. It should be an easier and more marketable solution to bringing more people to a voluntary society IMHO.
No. I'm saying that the non-aggression principle is based on property rights. So, trespassing falls under its purview.
Now, there is certainly a lot of debate as to how much of a violation trespassing actually is and how it ought to be handled. And, like any other violation, there are degrees of it and there are debates about whether or not the definitions are adequate. I don't like to get bogged down in semantics, especially when the concepts being discussed are usually the same.
Whether we call trespassing aggression or transgression doesn't change the fact that the property owner's rights have been compromised and that they indeed have a legitimate complaint against the trespasser. Ultimately, no matter which word you choose, you're going to have to base it on individual rights of life and property. As long as those are adequately defined and explained, then the violations of them can be properly judged. And the NAP or NTP are the guidelines for what constitutes a violation of rights.
That's true - Among people familiar with the use of the term in this context, this is no problem. But the ancap use of the term Aggression is misaligned with mainstream understanding of what the term denotes. I think this is at best a barrier to understanding for non-initiates, and at worst, a misleading term to use. The Non-transgression Principle looks like a superior alternative without these problems.