Comment: Okay

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: However (see in situ)


I think the original Boston Tea Party was a total act of violence. I believe it did not violate the non-aggression principle since it counts as defense even though it appeared to be an initiation of force. The real initiation of force was the tea laws which were totally against the free market had real negative effects on specific living people.

That said, the discussion should really be about what type of 'violence' will actually be useful. If goons are trying to abduct people in my neighborhood, I will defend them with force. I think most people would do that in those circumstances, or I'd like to believe. Prior to things getting that bad, there is simply a need for 'creative chaos' which draws attention.

What if patriots around the country simply went down to their local schools under cover of darkness and removed all the 'Gun Free' and/or 'Drug Free' signs from the school grounds? It is a form of violence. It is theft. But it is very purposeful and has a strong message and does not hurt any living soul. See? Think like this. Go to 'war' thinking like this and then the actions will be disobedient and have their intended effect.