It is moral behaviour
To those that responded to Tom Woods interview with a negative view of Anarchy (no rulers) you need to understand that anarchist of the individualist or voluntaryist persuasion believe in the equality of behaviour. No one has the moral authority to initiate violence, that means state minions most especially.
If you reject the golden rule or the non-aggression principle, and the principle that it applies to everyone, then you believe that in some instances it is OK to use violence against some one in some instances.
To me the fact (in the current state of affairs) that state minions are exempt from the non-aggression principle is morally repugnant.
Actions are either voluntary or coerced. The state only has one way of acting violence or coercion. In everyone's life interaction between individuals is either voluntary or coerced. The voluntary interactions are the norm, not the violent coerced type. This is not utopian it is a philosophy of a free society. From philosophy comes the filter to determine moral action.
I understand that those that reject the principle applying to everyone have a hard time overcoming your programming, it happened to me, I protested that I was not an anarchist , but I could not maintain the cognitive dissonance of 'some people can use violence if they are in government, but the rest of us must submit to the state's violence'.
I hope you can overcome the programming.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: