anonymous question

NAP is not a contract. It is a principle. If people in a certain community are guided by this principle in their actions—that is, they predominantly observe it and, in case of a violation, are ready to bear responsibility to those to whom they caused harm—then we can confidently call such a society libertarian.

In a libertarian society, there are ways of causing harm without violating the non-aggression principle, and you are speaking of one of them. Your manifestation of aggression toward someone who pursued you non-violently may be precisely the goal of that non-violent pursuit. With a high degree of probability, the person toward whom you displayed provoked violence was insured for a significant sum and also ensured wide broadcasting of all the circumstances of your interaction with them—otherwise, they were poorly prepared for the conflict, or perhaps they really are crazy. Consequently, after you resorted to violence, you likely end up paying a lot of money and suffering reputational damage, because a bunch of people will see how you, for example, in a rage, shoot a guy with a sign saying “so-and-so is a dick,” who was shouting that same phrase at you. “He really is a dick,” your potential counterparts decide.

In general, if you are prepared for such problems, you can give vent to your irritation. Maybe you’ll be lucky, and no one will even stand up for the deceased. But it is far safer to provide your hater with counter-shaming, or even, why not, try to reach an agreement.