A common argument I hear from Ancaps is that initiating violence (as defined by the NAP) against a person or institution equates to “ruling” a person (Ancap icon, Adam Kokesh argues this point numerous times on his podcast); my question is; why shouldn’t violence be used as a means to an end? A person can be ruled by imposed systems and imposed consequences such as moralism/religion, or economic stratification. Ancap is fine with this because it subsists off of imaginary claims of ownership and “human nature,” which allow them to conveniently ignore structural violence while espousing the virtues of their religion (the NAP). As an anarchist, I am opposed to the use of centralized violence and feel that violence as a whole is ultimately wasteful if not used with any tact (Ex: breaking windows is juvenile and does nothing to end the state), but to say that physical violence against institutions or people (such as property owners which use their claims of ownership to infringe on the livelihoods of others) is as hypocritical as it is dangerous as many other sweeping claims are being that;
1.) The NAP explicitly permits structural violence (as stated above). Hoppe (and his “libertarian brutalist” bastard children) takes this to its logical conclusion arguing that property ought to be established via social/economic stratification and “physical removal.” This model supports outright violence ought to be used against anyone who initiates “crimes” defined by a set of established norms and enforced via private interest groups (i.e the people who impose norms, which ultimately amounts to imposing restrictions on social mobility for individuals deemed as “undesirables”). Curt Doolittle takes this one step further and claims that race, ethnicity and social institutions are forms of property and suggests violence ought to be used as a means to an end to support these claims.
2.) Broad, claims about anything espoused by snake-oil salesmen with promise of a cure for societies ills, usually result in a literal blood-bath of violent acts as any amount of violence becomes acceptable for those who subscribe to (read: worship) whatever narrative supports their utilitarian garbage. As an anti-capitalist and anti-propertarian, I am in no way opposed to using violence to end the status quo. Nor should anyone in the anarchist community give way to the frail virtues of post-enlightenment liberalism… but at least I’m honest about it… Freedom, genuine meritocracy and volunteerism simply must be divorced from morality in order to function in accordance with the ethos of liberation.