“However, I don’t share your view that armed struggle always leads to victory for the state as there have been numerous countries that have secured their independence through exactly those means - America included.”
In the end, as elsewhere, all that the American revolution accomplished was to throw of one group of oppressors and replace it with another [some might even argue that the replacement was in fact just the original oppressor, i.e. the British Empire, disguised- but that’s a whole other can of worms].
“Secondly I do not share the view that the state can be persuaded to go quietly into that good night rather it will require a highly organised and dedicated minority to overthrow it.”
I never meant to appear to suggest that it could, or would, “go quietly into that good night”. And what do you have in mind for this imaginary " highly organised and dedicated minority" to replace the state with, once it /they have overthrown it? Let me guess- another, albeit “new” [but somehow better] state apparatus, right?
He most likely would have claimed that the state did violate the NAP first and that the kids in the creche at the state building were just collateral damage.
Still a bit odd I think. But that’s because I don’t follow his method to resolve the issue.