[I]n political philosophy we separate the use of proactive force (aggression) from reactive force (defense). So force can be put to positive (defensive) or negative (aggressive) uses. But then this approach requires that we define what we can aggress against, in order to know what we can defend against. In libertinism they refer to intersubjectively-verifiable property (physical things) whereas in propertarianism I refer to property-en-toto, meaning all things that humans seek to defend that they have obtained by voluntary exchange or homesteading (transforming). ergo: I cannot force your you to give me your attention – that is theft, which allows violence. Conversely I can use violence to defend against your attempt to get my attention. However, if I hear that you advocate theft, then I can defend against your advocacy of theft – and visa versa.