Applying the NAP to Everything

Recently I had a conversation with some Anarcho-Capitalists about the Non Aggression Principle applying to police officers. I was taken back by their implication that a police officer pulling over a citizen isn't in violation of the NAP. How can one call themselves an AnCap if they don't apply the NAP to everything. Now being someone who firmly believes in the NAP, I believe that the state is inherently violent, therefore everything the state does is backed up by the threat of violence. So of course this will apply to all actions made by a police officer.

The fellow AnCap's argument went something like this: The act of pulling someone over isn't violent, they are just doing their job, and if the subject was speeding then the police officer has the RIGHT to pull them over. So if you are familiar with Anarchy or the NAP you will notice many flaws in this argument. Firstly, there everything the state is backed up by the threat of violence so a police officer pulling over a person is still a violent action. Secondly, the whole "just doing their job" excuse has never worked and will never work. The Nazi's were just doing their job. The Soviets were just doing their job. Lastly, saying anyone has the right to physically stop someone from movement is insane. The only way I could comprehend this argument is to pretend that the police has this right because you are on state owned property, but of course that only works if you believe the state has the right to own property.

As AnCaps we need to learn to apply the NAP to literally every aspect of our lives. If we don't, it will be fairly easy for people to poke holes in our logic. This is more important than having all the theories of Austrian Economics down, because the average person can connect with ethical ideas more than the intricacy of Econ.