I was recently on a road trip to Las Vegas, location scouting for a new production I'm doing, one thing lead to another, and I got into an anarchy argument with my best friend.
I was just getting around to explaining the Non-Aggression Principal, real capitalism, and universally preferable behavior... when we were caught in a traffic jam and I gave an overly aggressive honk and middle finger to the asshole in front of me (giving anarchists a bad name I know).
My friend turned to me and said, "See, you just initiated the use of force!"
"No, I used my communication skills in an aggressive capacity." I replied.
"Exactly!" He said. "You used aggression. You sent him a threatening message to get him to move. The world can't work without aggression. You can't even get around without it."
It's probably a good time to mention that he's Eastern European, and the idea of 'limited government/anarchy/Don't Tread On Me' are not exactly concepts that he's familiar with. I told him this was incorrect, given that honking is fairly universal traffic language that humans have developed, and, short of road rage, of which I have never participated, honking is a fairly voluntary thing to do. I could have taken the argument into the territory of, "If the roads were privatized there wouldn't be traffic to honk at," but I decided against it.
But his reaction has stuck with me ever since. Where do you draw the line between aggressive communication, and communicating a threat? Is it okay in a voluntaryist framework to act aggressively? Stoicism is great and all, but at the end of the day I need to drive on these damn government roads.
To read more of my stuff head on over to @escapehatch for more Villainous Reads