Individualistic Anarchism — The implication here is that the individual rules over themselves and their property. Rule here means the exclusive claim to control one's body and the effects of that body, which includes property. It is from this exclusivity that the non-aggression principle is derived. To initiate the use or threat of violence is a negation of this exclusive claim, and thus defence against such aggression is warranted.
Collectivistic Anarchism — The implication here is that the individual rules over themselves but not their property. They have an exclusive claim to control their body, but not the effects of their body. Without an exclusive claim to property, people are justified in treating the property of others as if it were their own. If everyone agrees to this then there is no problem, however if an individualist who adheres to the non-aggression principle attempts to defend against such treatment, they will find the principle turned against them, for they will be the aggressor and the property violator the only one with the justification to use or threaten violence.
Nihilistic Anarchism — The implication here is that the individual has no exclusive claims at all. The initiation or threat of violence is irrelevant. People who work for or support government, who believe this to be the true meaning of anarchy, are in fact the ones inflicting nihilistic anarchism on everyone else. This is a paradox, a contradiction in terms. As contradictions do not exist in reality, only in the minds of people who do not think clearly, it is evident that anyone who works for or supports the infliction of nihilistic anarchism is psychologically damaged.