The policies of a particular security producer is not law and has nothing to do with defining the law (though they may be defined/informed by the law), in my view.
Clayton -
The policies of a particular security producer represents the practice of law.
I think I have figured out why it seems like we are talking past eachother.
I am not disputing that the non-aggression principle is the only law. Where the metaphorical rule books come to the fore is in the market for arbitrating disputes – i.e. How should an aggressor who tortured and murdered a child be treated? compared to How should a kid caught stealing an apple from the market be treated?
The law says they are both aggressors.
The practice of laws says that the murderer-aggressor by hung, drawn and quartered whereas the child-aggressor be sent to his room without supper.
I think this distinction is relevent since we tend to understand human action through the paradigm of the market.