Perhaps one of the most common, and debated questions is "is X aggression?"

What does "aggression" mean?

I ask, what does "aggression" mean? It's not like I'm naive or ignorant of the concept; I've watched it being thrown around since 2008. I've listened to many hour-long lectures on the NAP, and even applied it, written articles about it, and argued using it.

A few common ideas seem to be:

• Current acts of raw physical violence only.
• Violations of (physical?) property only.
• Anything 'immoral'
• Acts of harm
• Violations of self ownership
• Illegal activities in an AnCap society. (or feel should be)
• That which is involuntary/coercive.
• Violence, theft, fraud, and threats
• Anything which defies objective ethics.
• Whatever I feel is aggression
• imposed undesired relationships <- my former definition

As much as I'd like to point to a specific and clear definition of the NAP as the "true" definition, what makes one definition more correct than the other.

The Discussions

Most of these N.A.P. discussions revolve around various projected subjective meanings of the word aggression, which is then used categorically label actions as "is/isn't aggression,", without reference to values or what's actually happening. Further, appeals to subjective definitions of aggression are occasionally used to subvert discussion, and 'impose' one's own subjective values under the guise of the NAP, and therefore ought/immoral/law/etc.

Conclusions:

As much as I want to tell someone "no, you're wrong, X is (or isn't) aggression," I cannot do so and remain intellectually honest. So instead, i merely suggest that appeals to aggression are meaningless without specifying a definition. Though, perhaps rather than appealing to the frame "aggression" one might replace their use of "aggression" with whatever they define aggression to be. (i.e. "fraud is illegal in AnCapistan." or "fraud is an imposed undesirable relationship")