I think @anarcho-andrei is talking about things like Life, Liberty, The Pursuit of Happiness which are self-evident truths.
My personal take on law is that it should be the system that endure the preservation of NAP. The person/s who face agression should have the right to use whatever force that is necessary to neutralize the First use of force as force can only be stopped by equal or greater force.
Those who violate the NAP can be punished in 3 ways.
#1: Compensating for the damage+inconveniences caused.(some PoS models use this to punish bad actors)
#2: Removal from the society.(Exile of a massive fraudster or jailing a violent psychopathic serial killer)
#3: Removal of several or all right/interactions. In Buddhist tradition, the full extent of this punishment is considered the gravest punishment. What monks do is that they cease to acknowledge the very existence of a bad actor. Everybody acts as if the punished one doesn't exist.
Less severe version would be travel restrictions like you can't get closer than ***meters to a certain place or person.
The 3 types of punishments were taken from an article I read regarding Tibetan Buddhism which explained the above 3 types of punishments as the only forms of punishment that doesn't give you bad karma.
I've talked about this a week ago at:https://steemit.com/steemit/@skeptic/the-steemit-issues-arguments-from-the-other-side-part-1-censorship
You are welcome to check it out. It was a good discussion.
I call it ZAP...(zero aggression Principle) to which I fully subscribe.
I assume you regard using force against force as a negation instead of an aggression. Else there won't be any good guys left as the only thing capable of stopping an aggression is an equal force.
Which is why I don't ever refer to the right to exclude others from one's property by force as the ZAP.