[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rather, a lot of people do believe that the government has legitimate authority to violently enforce the mandate of the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats fine, it doesnt mean its morally acceptable. The majority used to think that slavery was ok and women had no right, etc. The whole point of this conversation is to raise an awareness of the true nature of government so that the majority dont accept the initiation of force upon the minority. The beliefs of the majority are irrelevant to this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you on this. But I'm trying to figure out how to discriminate "initiated" vs. "reactive" violence.

Whether or not they should, most people think that the government deserves "powers...to effect their Safety and Happiness." These powers include violent coercion of people exhibiting minority norms.

So is it correct to call government violence against statists "initiated violence"? After all, the government only exists because it is continually empowered by statists.

There's something very "self-inflicted" about this scenario that doesn't make "initiated" feel like the right word.

I mean, no artificially self-sustaining "state" exists in some extra-social context. The state is just a very large social institution enforcing one basic principle: the majority of my members are always right. Deal with it or I deal with you.