PACIFISM
"The pacifist position is that there is no legitimate use of force."
bkMarcus, A Brief Introduction to Philosophical Anarchism
[bk]
In theory, the term 'anarcho-pacifist' should be considered redundant.
In practice ... well, you'll have to ask the individuals who are calling themselves pacifists.
[bk]
Whether or not there is justification for reactive force is outside the definition of libertarianism, but do note that the pacifist position presumes the libertarian position: you cannot oppose all use of force without also opposing the initiation of force. To be true therefore to pacifist principles requires an acceptance of the libertarian position, as was recognized by Leo Tolstoy, the Russian novelist and Christian anarchist.
bkMarcus, A Brief Introduction to Philosophical Anarchism
[bk]
There are some libertarians who would go even further and say that no one should employ violence even in defending himself against violence. However, even such Tolstoyans, or 'absolutist pacifists,' would concede the defender's right to employ defensive violence and would merely urge him not to exercise that right. They, therefore, do not disagree with our proposition. In the same way, a libertarian temperance advocate would not challenge a man's right to drink liquor, only his wisdom in exercising that right.
Murray N. Rothbard,
The Myth of National Defense
[rothbard]