The point seems to be that violence is inherent to politics, therefore does not on its own render an act unjustifiable; not that all violence for political purpose is justified.
Cool
If my "politics" disagrees with those of the state, in that I don't believe people have a right to personal property, and that the police have no right to arrest me, then ultimately what will happen is violence against me by the state.
Of course if you voiced unpopular opinions publicly you might get shot by someone who cites Violet Gibson or Thomas Mair as an inspiration.
Or you know - we could not put up plaques to attempted murderers.
Because as I pointed out - you only cited examples whose politics you agree with.
Take the mental leap.
Congratulations.
Maybe an analogy would clarify. Let's suppose you didn't think speech was justified in politics. I would argue that political progress has very often come about because of speech. You cannot then infer that I support the content of every speech made by Tony Blair.
Everyone believes they are the hero of their own story - including people who hold different political beliefs to our own. They are surely only following the moral code you outline when they stand up for their convictions and reach for the revolver or knife or suicide bomb vest?
The irony here is that acceptable political violence is a facist belief. Perhaps you should investigate facism further: you might find it agreeable. I hear they have the best T-shirts.
There is potentially an argument to be had about what authority you have to decide that your act of violence is justified. I agree, that is difficult. But this again detracts from the core point which is that politics is consistently violent, right or wrong. It doesn't take a fascist state to commit violence for political purposes, it's happening all the time even in civilised countries.
And that really is the problem - in the one hand we have laws (set by governments) in a civil society that says violence is wrong, political violence doubly so, but at the same time they are putting up a plaque celebrating political violence.
It’s like “violence is bad... (wink)”
So if you were going to put up a plaque to Tony Blair celebrating his involvement in the Good Friday Agreement, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. I loathe the man personally and dislike much of his politics- but you are highlighting a positive thing he did.
Celebrating someone who is literally only thought of today because they failed to murder someone on the street sends a crazy message: “Murder is wrong... (wink)”
We don't, though. Violence is legal if it's being carried out by state-sanctioned actors such as the police or army in the course of their duties.
At the end of the day - Violet Gibson wasn’t an employee or representative of any government. She was just someone with mental health issues and a revolver.
Again we come back to Thomas Mair, if your principle is that political violence is fine (again - that’s facism), then the only thing you should find objectionable about him is his politics. He was, after all, following your rules.
Personally I try to follow the “do unto others...” golden rule.
“Kill all others” seems to be the guiding principle of too many people.
No, that's not my principle and I've corrected you multiple times.
Do you reject all violence? Under all circumstances? Some think that to be admirable. I think it's nonsense.