Just something I’ve been thinking. According to libertarian law it’s permissable to retaliate against coercion. The state uses coercion all the time, so is a violent revolution justified as long as only the state is targeted?
If you could wipe out the entire state, but only through a violent revolution where state officials/soldiers etc are killed by an angry mob, would you accept it?
Also, are corporations in bed with the government at fault too? Would they be punished?
"Violence is the power of darkness. If the revolution comes by violence … the old struggle will have to be begun anew” – Benjamin Tucker
It’s really not something you should hope for. In chaos situations, average people will probably favor fascism or communism, any politician really who promises to keep things back in control. Hunger is a powerful motivator, and not one that lowers time preference unfortunately.
Depends. If state officials/soldiers are shooting upon the mob first, then a retaliation in self-defense seems fair to me.
Honestly, what would really work is if even 1/3rd of the -entire- US population refused to pay their taxes.
"what would really work is if even 1/3rd of the -entire- US population refused to pay their taxes."
hehe. if it was the bottom third, it would just give money back to the government
so is a violent revolution justified as long as only the state is targeted?
Revolutions are an act of insanity, viva la insurrection!