If people of good will and upstanding moral character abandon the use of force do you think that people of ill-will will follow suit? The role of government is a role of force through a system of law. The abandonment of force means turning over the keys of government to those only of ill-will. And that's presently the system we have. Some may like it worded in the old axiom "if force is outlawed only outlaws will use force".
I completely agree. It's not illegal to apply force when force is being forced upon you. It's your right to defend your life, liberty, and property. This is one of the most essential human rights.
UPDATED: What we are debating is when it's okay to use force. If you can't kill someone for no reason, neither can the government.
In order to have a global empire in the first place it does require force. But it also requires force to dismantle it. Is being a proclaimed pacifist enough while your labor is taxed from you and used to wage wars and sustain a global empire? Does that make you a pacifist? Does that make you a non-user of force?
See what I had to say about this above.
This whole argument of force is such a semantic journey into linguistical never-neverland. What we should be talking about is what is good and moral and how we determine what is and what isn't. I promise you it's a more intellectually stimulating argument. Maybe that's why so many of the classics focused on morality.
Ok, I would be very interested in this. I already think we've been debating this somewhat already.