Of course, the state itself and all aspects of it violate the NAP, but at what point/under what circumstances does an individual violate the NAP if they use violence against high-ranking members of the State (legislators, presidents, justices)?
What about a tax collector?
Violence might be justified, but at the end of the day it’s counter productive.
I would probably say that that point would be when the ranking members of the state, of the community, or of a** push the individual into a position in which the violence is viewed and felt as a defense against those laws, policies, aggressions, or edicts. The NAP would not apply if the person is maintaining acts of self defense. I doubt very much that the instigators of say the American Revolution felt as though they were an aggressor in that conflict. Probably not the best example, but that ‘point’ you are asking about … to me is simply when the individual feels that acts are taken as self defense rather than as simply engaging in self benefit alone. Yes, self defense should also be a self benefit in nature … but in this case it should be made as acts in response of acts against yourself. Not unilateral acts of self benefit.
I’m not so sure of that. Perhaps the short term, but depending on circumstances there could be a long term productive side of ‘violence’ if justified.
Going by this logic you could argue that the Red Terror or Jacobin Reign of Terror were acts of defense. That is, of course, bollocks!
The problem with the state isn’t the individuals at the top. It is the ideology of the state held by the masses closer to the bottom.
No mass consent, no state.
Aren’t they constantly aggressing against us? Couldn’t we be defensive?
The problem with the state isn’t the individuals at the top. It is the ideology of the state held by the masses closer to the bottom.
No mass consent, no state
What abut the ideology of the ruling class? Also, does fear of repurcusion count as ‘consent’?
Their ideology is as important as mine. It only becomes important when people give it importance.
Fear of what? I am more afraid fo my fellow citizens allowing me to be beaten and taken to jail for violating one of the state’s edicts, than I am of the man or men who come to beat and collect me. I can fight one guy or 5 guys, I can’t fight 10,000. And I can really fight one or 5 guys if I have 10,000 people on my side of the conflict.
Check out Etienne de la Boetie.
“Going by this logic you could argue that the Red Terror or Jacobin Reign of Terror were acts of defense. That is, of course, bollocks!”
The logic stands; it’s the interpretation that can be called into question. The NAP is just words on a paper that every third person can and would read differently depending on how they choose to interpret where the line between violence and self defense differ. What you call bollocks, I and most sane people might and probably would agree to concur. But the same extremes for explanation of a NAP apply in the reverse. Some might argue that say the American Revolution violates the NAP, that it wasn’t within their right of self defense to throw off George III. Well I definitely don’t believe it was an act of aggression, and I’m sure that if explaining the NAP they would agree and see the fight for independence as an act of self defense. One person’s tolerance or non-aggression is another person’s slavery. By nature the NAP is different for every individual and only garners even more complication when attempted to be upheld by a group "against high-ranking members of the State (legislators, presidents, justices)”.
Their ideology is as important as mine. It only becomes important when people give it importance.
Is it not important when the rulers hold legal and military power that can coerce people into accepting it?
Fear of what? I am more afraid fo my fellow citizens allowing me to be beaten and taken to jail for violating one of the state’s edicts, than I am of the man or men who come to beat and collect me.
I’m not. It’s the people who come to beat that are the scary ones as far as i’m concerned. I think most people would say the same. And this is my point - what looks like ‘consent’ of the ‘masses’ as you quite patronisingly put it, is in most cases a desire to not fall prey to the repurcusions of the state.
Read de la Boetie.
Read de la Boetie
I will do as you suggest.