&gt; It describes a consistent model -- for spherical cows -- and chooses not to examine whether the model fits the real world.<p>Ok, so to be clear, you don&#x27;t have a logical inconsistency to point to?  Your complaint is purely utilitarian?  Well, I don&#x27;t really have much to say about that except that such a perspective only ever serves those presently in power.<p>&gt; The main issue is what constitutes aggression.<p>The initiation of force, force strictly related to property rights (derived from universal preference, not state fiat).  But before you equate my views to that of an adolescent again, let me first say that you&#x27;ve consistently redefined words.  You&#x27;ve indicated that english isn&#x27;t your native language, which could explain it - despite your command of the language otherwise, except for the fact that all your redefinitions shift the meaning to a very broad definition that supports your position.  That is what kicked the whole thread off, your redefinition of violence to include spoken word - and you&#x27;ve done it several more times here: aggression has been redefined to include economics, laws are now derived from ethics and not simply government decree, one&#x27;s own fears (rational or otherwise) and choices as a consequence constitute restriction by some other party.<p>If your political opinions are so informed by nature, I don&#x27;t understand how you could possibly think any system could exist where individuals enjoy the total absence of any outside stimuli that may cause them discomfort or hinder them in living out their every fantasy.  Especially when the terms are subject to redefinition, and all definitions are equally valid - because... feelings.<p>&gt; ...in a real anarchy, the threat of physical harm must always be present to offset other forms of aggression.<p>Well, that is really no different than the way things are now.  I believe you are pointing to a lack of monopoly on force, which does nothing to change the net amount of bad things that can happen to you - just the likelihood of total personal destruction as delivered by the state.<p>&gt; ...you&#x27;ve basically created a very lopsided, very non-free, and a very inconsistent system.<p>Consider for a moment the sort of world that we&#x27;d live in if aggression was redefined to your liking.  The internet would be a very quite place after a few hundred are arrested as word rapists.  Economics would grind to a halt as VCs are shuttered for all the human rights violations perpetrated in not funding everybody who approaches them.  Theological laws become the norm as the vocal insane grow in number.  You&#x27;ll find no freedom if you live at the mercy of somebody else&#x27;s emotional interpretations, but you&#x27;ll certainly find consistency and equality: constant misery for everybody.