[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
States by their very definition employ violence against innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO. States, in practice throughout history, have employed violence against innocents.

I think creating a society where power (in the Arendtian sense) is the primary organizing factor (rather than force) would be extremely difficult whether one used a state to do it, used markets, or used some other communal/syndicalist structure.

Nowhere did I endorse the state in my post. Nor did I endorse anarchism. It's assumed that if I don't want one, I want the other. Quite frankly, I'm not a big believer in either. "I hate politics and I hate the easy answers," as my favorite poet succinctly put it.

When an ACist accuses someone else of endorsing state violence against others, they are typically using a straw man. Most statists hold one or both of the following beliefs:

1. States should not initiate force against individuals in many instances where they do so (i.e. war on drugs, etc). States overstep their legitimacy when they coerce citizens beyond their ability to protect property. (In other words, the state isn't operating efficiently, and much of the waste and coercive externalization of costs is a product not of the theory of the state, but by its flawed implementation).

2. State initiation of force in some instances is legitimate and tacit consent is given by all citizens by virtue of their participation in society. (I think this is a far less compelling position.)

Nobody is going to tell you that their theory of the state includes coercive, illegitimate force.