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.