Libertarianism is flawed

Let me first start by saying thanks to HandsofManos for directing me to this site. And I look forward to hopefully having my questions answered. My first critique of libertarianism is its attraction to the non-aggression principle. The philosophy of libertarians is that individual liberty and freedom is paramount that any tampering with the individual's liberty or freedom is the greatest wrong, you can commit. This is all perfectly well. But libertarians seem to take it too far. This is personified in the non-aggression principle or (NAP). As a utilitarian, I believe that pacifism does lead to a better standard of living. However, if one must die, so 100 may live. There is not a moment's hesitation, but the non-aggression principle says that even though we would save 100 people it is still not right to kill this one, supporters of NAP. Maybe libertarians, maybe not, have come up with an array of solutions to this question. These solutions however were based around slightly more complicated scenarios, which is fair enough I guess. I don't accept changing the parameters of a hypothetical question. But I suppose some people want more details when it comes to life or death, no matter what the outcome is. So, allow me in detail to give you a different scenario, one, which also incorporates the free-market. Let's say in the last couple of years the world has become Libertarian with governments having only minimal power, in this world there is a man let's call him Larry he is married with two kids. One has a serious illness, but is treatable but involves regular trips to the hospital he is currently unemployed and has been for some time Larry's wife is pulling double sometimes triple shifts at her job to pay the bills and is not home that often. There is no welfare in this world for Larry to fall back on. I am not a fan of welfare, but I can still see the need for some type of state financial support in our society. The money Larry's wife is making is only enough to pay for electricity and heating bills, the mortgage and food. Not enough left over for the car, which they are still paying for. Larry needs this car, not just for getting around to jobs, but mainly to get his daughter to her medical appointments and drop his wife off at work. But time has run out. The firm that loaned him the money to pay for his car have waited long enough and are now going to repo it. Without this car, it would take six hours to get his daughter to hospital by taking the private buses. And what if there's an emergency. That's more than enough Larry isn't going to give up the car, when the repo men come for it. He warns them to stay off his property, the repo men tell Larry that the car is not his anymore and he needs to give it to them. Larry refuses, the well-being of Larry's family is at stake without this car he doesn't know what to do. There are no charities willing to help him. So he's on his own. Here's where the problem begins. You've heard Larry's side of the story let's hear the firm's side. The two repo men need to repossess this car if they don't, they don't get paid and their reputations are soiled. If they can't do their job, then the firm will just find someone else who can. So if they don't repo this car, they can lose their jobs and be in the same boat Larry's in. And if the firm lets Larry skip out on his payments and keeps the car. They'll have people doing it all over the country. The company will lose money, and then people will lose their jobs. Then more people will suffer, a utilitarian will instantly take the firm's side. But what about my opponent, allow me to add that Larry is not acting aggressive in anyway. He has simply refuse the firm access to his private property by closing the front gate. But this can be a form of aggression, but so can breaking down the front gate and stealing the car. But the car technically belongs to the firm because of the contract Larry signed but when he signed this contract. He was making enough money to pay for it. So, which side is the aggressor, and how this doesn't infringe on any one's individual liberty. Now the firm could just wait for Larry to move the car off his property such as when he takes his daughter to the hospital. Possible, Larry wouldn't just stay in the car and let his young daughter go in alone. But this isn't a problem because the hospital is refusing the firm to take Larry's car from their parking lot. It can look bad on the hospital and may scare clients away such as Larry. But the repo men could just wait for Larry to leave the car somewhere else. But Larry would then have to leave it somewhere they can get to. It's possible a private car park would be like the hospital in denying them access or Larry can simply leave the car at a friend or relatives home. But he couldn't possibly keep the car at any of these places all the time. Of course not, but all Larry needs to do is make sure someone is always in the car, because the repo man cannot just drag you out of the car... or can they? The ethics of NAP says that Larry is the aggressor, because he has implemented coercion and the repo men can now act in Self-defense for the firm. And this does entitle them to go onto Larry's property without his permission and take his car, wherever it is, and if Larry should come out with a gun. Do the repo men have a right to shoot him? Even though they can avoid this by simply leaving him alone, they may leave him alone, but the firm won't. Do they now have the right to send men with guns to Larry's home and force him to give up the car and if so, how this is not infringed on people's liberty. Because is it not one's liberty, to live without the risk of being threatened physically or verbally if so, then Larry's not the aggressor. The firm is unless the closing of one's gate is aggression enough to respond with violence. I finished this criticism with this, what is the libertarian answer to this problem, who is the aggressor and why.