Maybe, but, again, rent is not fully voluntary and taxes are not fully involuntary. It's not clear that one is more coercive than the other. You need income, which is taxed, to live (unless there's a strong safety net!) but you also need a place to live (even if you're homeless, you're staying somewhere that's probably public property, which right-wing libertarians oppose). If you're poor, paying for housing could be a crushing burden while taxation could be negligible (and income taxes, specifically, are very low for most Americans). If you're the landlord, your perspective will be different, but then we're in the situation of the LL thinking that the NAP justifies rent but not taxes, while the renter has the opposite view. So, again, the key issue is who is entitled to what, and the NAP is silent on it.
Yeah, and that's good. I think that a pragmatic discussion around those things is really what is best for society. The NAP is just a distraction used to pull a rhetorical sleight of hand (that is, it doesn't actually contribute to that discussion, but it gives people the impression that it does if they're not paying close attention). People used to be more accepting of the kind of sexual harassment you mentioned, but we've made (what I would consider) progress. Right-wing libertarians, being by nature authoritarian, what to go backwards on that kind of thing and justify it with the kind of bad reasoning we've been talking about.
BTW, good discussion on this subject here (both the original piece and the comments):
http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/01/let-it-bleed-libertarianism-and-the-workplace/