I think the main difference between us is that I approach ethics differently. Whether or not an act is "non-aggressive" or "does not violate property" does not determine whether that action is ethically right or wrong. I adhere to a mixture of natural law theory, preference utilitarianism, and consequentialism. Basically, I think that something is morally wrong if it increases overall suffering, and right if it minimizes or decreases suffering. Whether or not it is "theft," "aggressive," or anything else is irrelevant. If a man has no food and can't find work, and he, therefore, steals some food to feed his starving kids, then I don't think his theft was morally or ethcially wrong. (Also, I don't distinguish between moral standards and ethical standards. I regard such a distinction as useless and fictitious.)

If you want to know more about my approach to ethics, see my series on Ethics.