Yeah, I think accidents are not direct aggression. So a strict reading of the NAP would mean accidents are not a violation.
But that's why we have this concept of a tort.
tort |tôrt|
noun Law
- a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability.
ORIGIN
Middle English (in the general sense ‘wrong, injury’): from Old French, from medieval Latin tortum ‘wrong, injustice,’ neuter past participle of Latin torquere ‘to twist.’
Unfortunately, the dictionary definition injects rights into scope. I think the NAP can follow a tort if answered or bypassed if answered. If an accident occurred, there is only a tort. If the tort does not then proceed to compensation, then that is the act of aggression.
But this is all minutia and syntax.
Excellent argument. i cannot disagree this itself does not strengthen the NAP. But I can say it's one solution and there is still a lot of grey area such as transgressing happiness it will not cover.