What is and is not an evolutionarily stable strategy will always be defined by the environment in which populations exist. A change in environment will disrupt any equilibrium. Capitalism as it exists now, for instance, might seem to be an ESS, but a change in conditions could change that. Similarly, on a long enough timeline, the vast, vast majority of strategies (so far) have proven non-viable. Doesn't mean they don't work for some groups, or for a time.

(I suspect your downvotes are from mudslinging with 'adolescent' and 'utopian', which sort of clash with/give the lie to your air of dispassionate analysis)

I didn't intend for it to be dispassionate. The NAP doesn't work because it would require a suspension of the laws of physics. If you are unwilling to engage in violence on principle then your resources will get taken from you by someone or some thing who is less willing to be bound by principle. It's really that simple. Anarchists and libertarians who subscribe to the NAP are no different from the adherents/victims of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment who think they can use quantum mechanics to cause objects to materialize with the power of their minds. I think the adjectives "adolescent" and "utopian" are quite apt in both cases. (And it doesn't surprise me a bit that I'm getting downvoted. Adolescent utopians and cult leaders rarely react well to being called out. But I care about the truth more than I care about HN karma.)

Nah, you can always make unstable strategies viable by having a powerful party intervene on the system...