I would feel very sad, and I would want to do something about it. But I would do so without breaking the NAP. Which means not taking other people's money/labor

I would feel very sad, and I would want to do something about it. But I would do so without breaking the NAP. Which means not taking other people's money/labor and letting some third-party spend it as they see fit under the guise of "reducing suffering", even though the goal is noble. I would spend my own money to the degree with which I'm comfortable and how strongly I feel. This doesn't mean it's a "less moral" system. As a counter-example: Would putting surveillance cameras inside every house to prevent domestic violence be a "more moral" system just because it reduces more suffering? Where do we draw the line for which rights we're okay with violating in order to stop suffering? I just put it at a very non-arbitrary spot, which is the NAP.