&gt;&quot;<i>Unless they&#x27;re actually offended by non-violence, in which case they probably did you a favor.</i>&quot;<p>Most would not say they are offended by non-violence, and most would actually advocate non-violence. The problem comes in when you start pointing out that logical and consistent definitions of violence&#x2F;aggression preclude a lot of the things people value and think noble. To some, mentioning you are Libertarian inherently means you are saying all of their &quot;noble&quot; and &quot;good&quot; ideas should be scrapped because they rely on aggression. Hence the cliched &quot;you want poor people to starve&quot; criticism of Libertarian-like beliefs.<p>Violence is also a bit of a misleading word, in that it paints a very physical picture. Threat of violence can be seen as aggression, and is on-par with actual violence because the implication is that if compliance is not achieved, the aggressor will exercise violence. Had to clarify a bit, as I did switch the discussion from violence to aggression, which is what libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is mainly about.