Can you explain when "ethics that have at least some grounding in science and empirical examination of the world" conflict with the non-agression axiom?
They may or may not conflict; I just reject it as an axiom. It's possible that there are good reasons to support a society structured around a non-aggression principle, though.
(I don't have a fully worked-out ethical theory, but I'm intrigued by the stuff Sam Harris is doing to try to reduce the gap between ethical theorizing and science.)
