PL says no to initiated aggression (it is important to distinguish between initiated aggression and aggression that is a response to aggression. The implications are many. A few related to contemporary time and space.
No taxation. This would not remove the need to spend on services such as security or dispute arbitration. It would add the ingredient of competition which would incentivize those supplying such services to cut costs and increase quality.
No welfare redistribution. This would not remove charity. It would only remove making some the enslaved caretakers of others. This goes for businesses as well as individuals. This goes for streets, education, and yes security services. The costs in all cases are born by someone. That anyone bears them under forced seizure of private property is unjust.
No mandated association. This would not prevent individuals from association. Quite the opposite. But it would give employers the same choice that potential employees have. And it would give buyers and sellers more generally total freedom in trade.
No imposing punishment on some for the crimes of others. This is unjust. That history is full of crime and injustice is not doubted. That any of it can be repaired by the imposition of new injustices is deeply mistaken.