I reject any opinion that violating the NAP is moral, outside of immediate life threatening situations when your actions don't threaten the life of another person and you also compensate the victim.
A society should be based on morals, but operated on practicalities, with a goal of achieving as close an approximation of the morals as possible. The morals that the NAP upholds are that it is never right to violate someone's rights. So in order to approach that goal, we should reduce rights violations as much as possible. That means that any interaction which can be entirely voluntary, should be. In the case of a loaf of bread, It would be preferable to ask (as you note), rather than to steal. Further, any interactions which are in violation of the NAP should be compensated, to acknowledge that you have done wrong. If you do steal the loaf of bread, you will have to compensate the person you stole the bread from. In the ordinary course of life, there are very few interactions that cannot be entirely voluntary, and most of them are considered crimes. In fact, I can not, at this time, think of any.
The problem arise when what you regard as moral is regarded by others as an infringement of their rights. For example, racial discrimination violates the right to equal treatment. You say that not allowing racial discrimination violates your property rights. At some point a choice has to be made about what rights are more important and the NAP is no real help with that.
