Who doesn’t want peace? Not many.

One of the most difficult things for me to learn was that some people really prefer violence over more peaceful alternatives. I still haven’t quite wrapped my head around it, but I accept it.

I’ve engaged with the articles core argument about the legitimatization of violence, but the only answer is more violence for some of you people.

Fight fire with fire and watch the whole world burn. Just like it is because of the oppressor’s violence.

What liberal position would?

Did you just read the first line of what I said?

I’m not a big fan of the legitimizing violence, personally.

I think the identification of the problem as liberalism’s impossible position between the oppressor and oppressed is spot on. But, rather than giving into endless violence, I’m prefer extending the precepts of liberalism without exception.

Liberals always make exceptions. For them, only the worthy poor deserve help, worthiness being arbitrarily determined by some pseudo-philanthropist laundering their savage public image through charity, for example. In the public sphere, we’ve been convinced that means-testing is an efficient way to distribute goods and resources, never mind the arbitrary power administrators have over those they administrate. Always exceptions.

So, just…get rid of exceptions.