Imagine a situation: two people and a chair are in a room; only one of them has a weapon and both know it; the armed person says loudly: “it would be nice if someone sat on this chair, and also, weapons can be used to cause pain and kill” – and this is sort of a threat, but it cannot be proven in any way, and if one risks not complying with the demands, the armed person may use the weapon and finally officially exit the non-aggression pact, but a dead person will no longer care about that. Of course, if both are armed, then both threaten each other, and both are thereby protected, but if one party is deprived of their weapon at some point, it becomes the literal right of the strong.

Han Solo

The example is, of course, somewhat contrived, but we’ll make do with what we have.

A person who believes they are being threatened has some grounds for doing so. It is specifically they who feel this way right now, and for them, it is important. If they have any doubts about the fact of the threat, or believe it is important to convince third parties of the threat, they should make the situation more explicit. For example, by asking:

– Do I understand correctly that you are threatening to injure or kill me if I don’t sit down? Or am I free to leave?

The interlocutor may continue to speak in hints for some time, but sooner or later they will have to formulate an explicit demand if they want the second person to sit, or use the weapon if they simply want to cause them harm. Naturally, this involves some risk. What is it worth taking that risk for? Primarily to gain certainty for oneself and, possibly, to obtain a body of evidence for third parties who will evaluate the situation as it unfolded.

In a state, we regularly encounter situations where superiors do not give explicit orders because the subordinate is expected to understand the hints. If the situation turns out poorly for the superiors, they can always claim they were misunderstood, and the phrase “this guy irritates me” by no means meant an instruction to shoot him during arrest and declare him a terrorist. If a subordinate is poor at understanding hints, they will not stay in their position for long.

The right of the strong is as much a fiction as a non-aggression pact. Even the strong prefer to justify their claims somehow, tailoring them to some notions of justice. This is less costly than proving one’s strength every time one wants to get something. The same goes for a non-aggression pact. People have no need to specifically agree not to attack each other; they will only do so anyway when they have a reason they consider valid. But if such a reason exists, no agreement will stop them.

Therefore, it seems to me that using such theoretical constructs to describe the world is simply inconvenient. It’s roughly like discussing human activity in categories of sin, karma, or class interests.

It is far more useful to use more adequate constructs to describe one’s actions and motives. “It seemed to me that he was close to carrying out his implicit threat, and I preferred to fulfill the request, although I didn’t really want to. Next time I will try not to be alone with him while unarmed.”

Something like that.