The Escalating Force Principle: Another NAP for Lolbertarians

I've been mulling this idea over for a while now, and now I'm going to spit it out instead of swallowing. If you've been hanging out around Twitter and 4chan, you've probably seen the Picardia memes mocking various ideologies, especially the proud Ancapistani people. Despite the fact that these posts are pretty funny, I feel the need to take the autism to the next level like the pretentious buzzkill that I am and posit a new ethical claim that expands and refines the nonaggression principle which I'll call The Escalating Force Principle.
The EFP comes from the "eye for an eye" idea that's been present in society for millennia ever since the Ancient Babylonians. It's the reason why when your neighbor steps on your lawn you can't just blow him to kingdom come with your heat-seeking RPG, and it's why Shaquille O'Neal can't suplex a Make-A-Wish Foundation kid for coughing on him.
The EFP states that "Any violation of the NAP may be responded to only with force that is just as violent or less violent than what the offender uses. The amount of force applied may be escalated naturally with the amount of resistance received". In other words, if someone steals your candy bar, you can't blow their brains out. You CAN try to grab it back, and if the thief tries to beat you off you can respond similarly and tackle them. The reason why you can morally escalate force is because the act of resisting justice is a crime itself.

There is one caveat, however, to this principle. While a crime is happening, the victim may anticipate that a crime is about to happen and respond to that. Obviously, if a criminal has a gun pointed at you shooting him is justified. However, when it comes to punishment for the crime after the fact, it must fit the crime. It would be over-punishment to sentence a criminal to death for attempting to kill someone, but it would justified for the victim to kill the criminal in media res.
It's important to note that the government will always escalate violence to the highest degree whether or not it is in the right. Law enforcement will carry out any law no matter how unjust, and attempts to resist their immoral violence will result in your subjugation and, ultimately, death.The law, therefore, isn't simply a set of rules; it is a set of death threats. When laws are passed which restrict victimless crimes, the government is essentially threatening to murder people who aren't hurting others. Because of this, very few laws can be seen as legitimate. Only the laws which protect people from violations of their rights to life, liberty, and property are moral; the rest, such as drug laws, minimum wage laws, licensing, gun control, etc., must be abolished.