Little annoys me more than this phrase. Well, actually that’s an exaggeration because a lot of things annoy me a lot. But this is one of them. The problem with it is that it’s only half the story. People say “Violence is never acceptable except in cases of self-defense” but this actually means that if a mugger attacks someone near you, you aren’t allowed to help! If you took an arbitrary work by any person in this world about the ethics of force and replaced all the occurences of “self-defense” with “defense of an innocent person”, you would have a much better and more coherent case.

You know, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we who’ve been indoctrinated with statist propaganda are so addicted to this phrase. Statists want you to think violence is only acceptable in cases of self-defense because that’s nearly the opposite of how an Anarcho-Vigilantist (my philosophy) operates. An Anarcho-Vigilantist never hesitates to intervene in the affairs of others if there’s evil being perpetrated, whereas statists benefit from everyone minding their own business. If people were Anarcho-Vigilantists, after all, there would be no need for police, because everyone would become a sort of police (except without the authoritarianism) whenever they were needed as one. And governments can’t have that.