[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]

In this case, the statist still believes that some force to coerce citizens is "legitimate" - so the accusation that this statist endorses violence against others is valid. The fact that this statist thinks that *some* force is "over the line" is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the example I gave, the state's use of force is legitimate when it is protecting someone's property. Protection of property is one your core values, isn't it?

Regarding your objection to the second point, as I said, I don't find it very compelling either. My point is that the typical theory of the state (the social contract) holds that individuals consent to the rule of the government and participate in the creation of all laws that concern them. You and I both know that in practice ('representative democracy') this has led to a variety of practices that involve the illegitimate initiation of force against individuals and their property. As part of this, many people view these actions as legitimate by virtue of their faith in the government. That doesn't mean that the theory of the state, or the ideal notion most people have of it, includes illegitimate force. Many people don't think critically about it, or misunderstand key concepts. But you'd rather simply call them 'thugs.' I'm sure that makes you feel good about yourself, but that's about all it does.