> Ok, so to be clear, you don't have a logical inconsistency to point to?
No, there is a logical inconsistency, but it can't be uncovered by looking at a statement in isolation. It's like saying that the statement A /\ B has no contradiction, but if you look at the definition of B and see that it's defined as ~A, then the contradiction is apparent. My example contains such a contradiction.
> aggression has been redefined to include economics
No. Aggression is defined (at least in the dictionary I have in front of me) as: "hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront". Nowhere does it say that aggression means a physical attack. I do not define aggression to include economics. I state that if you study the world (I studied history in graduate school) and learn how aggression works, you see that it often works through economics (sometimes through religion, sometimes through other social forces). If you say that your ethics include just a prohibition of physical aggression then I say that 1. it still leads to contradiction in my example, and 2. it is completely arbitrary. After all, you've chosen those values to achieve a purpose -- say freedom -- and you correctly note that aggression restricts freedom. But then you make the factual error -- that can only be confirmed through empirical observation, not logic -- that it is physical aggression that restricts freedom, and that's false.
If you actually want to learn about aggression rather than believe in some system that seems logical to you but is actually intended for spherical cows, you can start here: http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/social-psychology-prin...
How do you know that it's a good place to learn? Well, because it was written by people who have actually studied the subject rather than people who speculate on it, and therefore, while it may be wrong, it is probably a better source than that of people who want to prescribe ideas without learning how the system really works beforehand (i.e. they prefer their own imagined explanation to how the system works, which they take great care not to accidentally verify in the real world).
> laws are now derived from ethics and not simply government decree
I'm sorry, but it is you who are unfamiliar with some definitions (I spent years of my life studying these things). My dictionary says: "Law: the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties". You see government mentioned? Decree? A law is rule + enforcement accepted by a community. That's the only definition.
> Especially when the terms are subject to redefinition, and all definitions are equally valid - because... feelings.
You're making the same mistake. You want my statements to include redefinition of words (because you believe that that's what people of liberal or anarchic (as opposed to libertarian-anarchic) views or something do. But it's not really what I'm doing. If you want to argue with me you must first try to understand what it is that I'm saying, not misunderstand it based on what you'd want me to be saying.
> 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
Ah, but if you want to limit the amount of "bad things" you must first study how "bad things" happen. As someone who has studied it, I can tell you that more bad things are caused by intimidation than by a release of violence. I'll gladly argue over facts with you, but we should at least be talking out of some knowledge and not a "feeling" that bad things happen because of physical violence.
Anarchy and the sanctity of private property can't go together. A system where the poor are not allowed to steal from the rich (because private property) but the rich are allowed to starve the poor as long as they don't do it through physical violence (i.e. they're allowed to do it the way this has actually been done in history) is not a free system. In a real anarchy, if the rich starve the poor, the poor will gang up and kill the rich. Only in such a system you can have true freedom. Otherwise, your "anarchic" society will quickly devolve into a system of masters and slaves (with no physical coercion!) We know that because that actually happened, and in quite a few distinct societies (including Europe).
> aggression was redefined to your liking
You mean that if aggression was defined the way you think it is
> The internet would be a very quite place after a few hundred are arrested as word rapists.
What? Arrested? I'm an anarchist! And short of that, a social-democrat! Neither anarchists nor social democrats advocate the arrest of people who threaten rape online. We just don't think communities should tolerate them.
> Theological laws become the norm as the vocal insane grow in number...
Look, study some history instead of making these Glen Beckian sci-fi fantasies. Pretty much every legal or political system you can think of has been tried somewhere more-or-less. I'm not saying we know how things will turn out -- far from it -- but we can at least make a few informed bets or knowledgeable comparisons. Your projections are similar to someone who'd try to create a model of the physical universe, but who's simply unaware of the electromagnetic force. There's a gap of information here, and without information you can't build a model.