logic32

This is a common error, it doesn't follow that because you don't own yourself as property, that you can be morally permissibly killed or raped. For instance, it might be morally wrong to rape you because it has bad consequences, i.e. suffering. There are many other moral frameworks which explain why rape is wrong other than deontological self-ownership. That doesn't mean it isn't a valid theory, just that this is a bad argument for it.

"Ultimately you are left with a net loss in aggression."That's advocating a consequentialism of non-aggression, which is anathema to Stefan's philosophy. It isn't about limiting acts of aggression overall, rather not commiting acts of aggression yourself. What you are suggesting is in fact an argument from effect, which Stefan would reject. The fact that it might have consequences you like doesn't mean that initiating force is morally permissible.