Comment: You are confusing the

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I assume this was meant for me. (see in situ)

You are confusing the

immediacy of defense, with the legitimacy of defense.

Justice is a continuation of the process of self defense.

Once someone has violated NAP by committing aggression, you have a right to defend against the aggression.

To conclude otherwise leads to absurd conclusions.

Consider the typical fistfight. You get into a verbal dispute, and a guy punches you in the nose.

Do you have the right to hit him back?

Practically all libertarians would agree that you do.

However, after he threw the first punch, there is a delay in time before he throws the second punch. So, technically, the "attack" has stopped between each punch, and you have no right to punch him back, using your logic.

Indeed, the underlying rationale for defensive force is to apply enough force to dissuade your attacker from continuing to run around attacking people.

If an attacker attacks you every day by sneaking up on you and hitting you with a bat, do you have the right to attack him back if you happen to spot him 4 minutes later, 4 hours, 4 days, etc.

Yes. You do. Once someone has demonstrated by their actions that they will violate NAP, it is reasonable and justified to expect that they will continue to violate NAP until they are met with sufficient force to dissuade them from further attacks. It does not matter how much time has elapsed since the original attack.