Supporters of etatism and the use of force generally divide violence into illegitimate violence—that is, “bad” violence, which must be fought against—and supposedly “legitimate” violence, which is considered beneficial and may be, or even must be, applied. Violence may be declared legitimate for the sake of achieving certain goals which, according to etatists, are worth treating people as nothing more than a soulless resource in the hands of a “wise” government. Violence may be declared legitimate for the sake of revenge and the forceful punishment of those who committed an act of violence in the past, or even those who simply violated some agreement through non-violent means; this is supposedly a necessary measure in the fight against crime, and generally allows for a kind of “social revenge,” letting people blow off steam on those who have done something wrong.
Of course, based on different ethical models and views on social organization, one can attempt to legitimize any form of violence. They can even be legitimized based on certain practical considerations, but only in a very limited sense, by avoiding a full consideration of the final results. However, if one stops engaging in purely subjective theorizing and fully examines the results of violent practices, it becomes evident that violence only leads to catastrophe, regardless of whether it is called legitimate or not.
To understand what the issue is, let us imagine a situation. A specific person has been accused of committing some crime; the court has found them guilty and ordered them to pay compensation or submit to other measures (for example, go to prison). However, they refuse to do so. Of course, a number of non-forceful methods of pressure can be used, especially various reputational and financial tools. But this does not satisfy you, and you want to achieve your goal by force? Then let us see how far you are willing to go, especially considering that we live in a modern high-tech world in which the destructive potential of a single individual grows every day.
1) Using one or another weapon of self-defense, the convicted person destroys the agents who came to their home and are forcing them to comply through threats of violence.
2) Using explosives previously planted in an apartment building or a crowded place, the convicted person demands to be left alone; otherwise, they will have no choice but to detonate them (or fail to prevent a detonation via a pre-set timer, if they have already been caught and are not being released), thereby killing many people.
3) Using a previously planted container with a non-dangerous virus (for example, flu or coronavirus), the convicted person follows the same scheme to infect several people in the city, thereby forcing the authorities to impose a strict two-week quarantine throughout the city (assume that you personally would be forbidden from leaving your home during this quarantine).
4) Using a previously planted “dirty bomb,” they turn a large city into a second Pripyat; the population is completely evacuated, and many die from cancer. All real estate and some of the movable property of the city’s residents are lost forever (becoming unusable due to radioactive contamination).
5) Using a previously planted container with a very dangerous virus obtained or synthesized earlier (which, with technical progress, will also cease to be a major problem), the convicted person launches a pandemic that leads to a large-scale quarantine across the entire country for a long period, a high number of victims, and the collapse of the economy.
6) Using thermonuclear missiles (the convicted person being wealthy enough to produce them) or ultra-high-capacity energy sources (which, like virus synthesizers, could become quite accessible, even common everyday tools), they turn the entire planet into a scorched desert barely fit for life and destroy civilization in the form it currently exists. A small portion of survivors reverts to the Stone Age.
I think the maximum risk you would be willing to take is what is described in the first point; otherwise, the consequences would be catastrophic. And in the event that the Balance of Violence Potential is achieved (meaning universal armament), this option will inevitably end with the liquidation of enforcement agents, which will make forced coercion fundamentally impossible!
