What in your opinions is the best means of a defense to(force in general), since might over another implies a subjugation or death?
Men not apes, rarely throws an aggresor off. Some defenses like..Do you value what others think about you? Do you get a fiscal bonus for your desire to incur injury to others? The defense of an apeal to non-aggresion through property rights and so forth doesn't realy stop that intruder from having the desire to 'gank' you. If you even have the time to try and reason. I still believe however that the principal of non aggresion is the best defense against violence. To not provocate is indeed a means. Say an intuder wants to gain your purse. If you do not have the means of self-defense, you must submit or be more grossly violated, depending on the ends of the violator.
I suppose the question may be to wide a stroke, since all responses depend on time and space, the variable of any specific event may imply infinate possibilities.
I try to challenge those around me to confront the inellectually elite, but it seems that some find more value in stronger is always the means for resolution. One force modulates into another over time indefinatly?
How free is the master of the slave. I don't suppose it would help the 'criminal' profiteer to convince him that freedom is a better means for himself and all.
Who is the most insane the accuser or the accused?
Should not defense of the meek be status quo? Or accepted public law.
Slaves revolt from your subjugation or accept it for what ends?
I'm not too sure what you're trying to get at, but Adam Knott has an excellent piece on coercion from a praxeological point of view.