I very much sympathize with and understand the position you find yourself in. As I was reading this, a few things entered my mind that I will briefly address.

1. Yes, the society you describe in 3 points is unrealistic now but it is a realistic goal given the correct conditions, and those are conditions that we can work towards today.

2. Restricting NAP as a physical absolute to one's immediate environment and loved ones is a precarious position, because large scale aggression is historically presaged by by geographically distant small scale aggressions. Does the injustice being committed against others diminish its threat to ourselves because of geographical distance? In an era of telecommunication and mass social movements this is an important consideration to ponder. NAP is great for localized interpersonal issues, but when it comes to violent political persecution like we are seeing on the streets today, with its frightening parallels to the run up to WWII, it can be a risky proposition to say the least.

3. While I would contend NAP should be a physical absolute, I recognize the potential for it to fail its practitioners by allowing aggressors to gain too much momentum. Thus it is all the more imperative at the first signs of aggression to be vocally aggressive in the preservation of one's own interests. What I am saying here is that being aggressive in the sphere of ideas and public rhetoric against those who seek to restrict others' freedoms or use violence against others can never come early enough.

4. I believe you are right to behave as if we already live in the ideal world you believe should exist most of the time. I do the same thing, this is what is traditionally known as leading by example and it is the surest way to win hearts and influence minds. But as someone mentioned below, all ideologies eventually meet reality, it reminds of the phrase that goes something like "The best laid plans go up in smoke once the fighting starts." What do we do then? I don't have any answers right now unfortunately.

5. And one point I would differ on is that of young people not being taught critical thinking skills. t is not merely that young people aren't being taught critical thinking skills, it is that they are actively being taught to reject and disrespect critical thinking skills by educators who advocate the emotionally relativistic construction of "truth". I tried to address this point specifically in my latest post in the sections on The Cultural Turn and Postcolonialism. Over the years I have become increasingly convinced this crippling of cognitive skills is intentional. See the works of John Taylor Gatto and Charlotte Iserbyt who do a good job of documenting the intent to do exactly that.

As to the question of "where does self defense begin?", I would contend it definitely begins in the realm of ideas. As to when it become acceptable to engage in what politicians like to call preemptive defensive force, I have yet to determine that for myself. The bar set by Antifa however we do know, and that is when people say things they don't like. I would never advocate that position, but it is worth knowing what standards one's adversaries hold themselves to. I wish I had answers rather than just sympathy and empathy for your position right now.