The non-aggression principle can be applied or ignored by both atheists and religious people. There is no monopoly on rationality and life is simply to complex to claim that you are rational on all fronts. Remember one of the least rational and most destructive systems ever was sold as "rational" and run by atheists, unless I've just misread this whole thing about the soviets and they were all closet Catholics.
Currently the truest and most consistent libertarian with any political power is a Christian named Ron Paul.
Ack, the old argument about the Soviet Union and North Korea being atheist.
Are you truly suggesting that the failings of communism had to do with their insistence on open and free enquiry? Is that what was wrong with communism? Is the real problem in North Korea that there are too many opinions being voiced, and that nothing is taken as an article of faith, or on the authority of the "dear leader".
The Soviet and North Korean versions of communism (as well as quite a few others, if not all) are essentially religious systems. In the case of the Soviet Union they did not believe in a supernatural deity, but they sure as hell believed in a long litany of natural ones... you'd typically find them leading he Communist Party.
The North Koreans don't even presume to do away with a supernatural deity. It's called Kim Il Sung. He's been dead for ages, yet he's still the official leader of the country. He has a son, who also has a son... it is, in fact, a Holy Trinity! As Christopher Hitchens so eloquently put it: At least you can fucking die and leave North Korea!
Every other aspect of how those communist systems were and are run is a carbon copy of the most established religions. Their hierarchical nature. Their obedience to the edicts of the "authority". Most importantly, their suppression of free enquiry and open discussion of ideas.
You want to find the counterpart to a theocracy? Don't look for it in the communism of the Soviet Union, North Korea or even Cuba. Go to Sweden instead.