I do not feel that at this time, with the potential libertarians that we are marketing our ideas to, that direct violence against the State (such as blowing up city hall or some nonsense like that) is a very productive action.

I feel that it only lends sympathy to the State and makes the State look like a victim rather than an assailant.

If we want people to recognize the State as the aggressor, then it is important that we reveal it as such through acts of peaceful civil disobedience.

Also, please no ad hominem attacks. I never said anything about Ghandi, and I do not think peaceful civil disobedience is the only justified way of achieving our goals. All I said was, at this time, peaceful civil disobedience, rather than direct violence against the State, is a better way of marketing our ideas. That's the only claim I made.

I never said that we should all sit down with our legs crossed and light ourselves on fire 'till the State disappears, lol.

And I have noted in the past that, if some government workers ever come to my house and try making me report to "mandatory civilian service" camp, that I will NOT let that happen; and will use violence to prevent that if I need to.

I never said violence couldn't be used for good (obviously, self-defense is a great thing if someone is attacking you). I just said, at this time, it's BAD, BAD marketing under MOST circumstances. That's all.

Thanks for your comment.

<blockquote cite="">and of course you continue with the usual indefensible FK pooh-poohing of violence in reaction to the state, otherwise correctly known as self defense. if such a blanket position is sound, it withstands extreme tests such as jews waiting to be gassed in the 40s

Exactly how did it fail? Didn't that result with the creation of the Jewish homeland?

You're a smart guy Charley. Why don't you grind out a better argument against peaceful resistance?

<blockquote cite="">…if such a blanket position is sound, it withstands extreme tests such as jews waiting to be gassed in the 40s.

Exacly how? I thought that resulted with the creation of a Jewish homeland.

Charley, go back to the drawing board and figure out a better argument against peaceful resistance.

You keep claiming that use of state services somehow "validates" the state. Could you clarify what you mean by "validate" please?

The only way to validate the state is to sign a contract. As far as I know, Ian has never signed a contract agreeing to obey the state. Also, he has never supported them voluntarily either. Support under duress is not voluntary.