I might well prefer non-violent strategies for the attainment of a free society (and the political will certainly never be acceptable). But I am not going to rule out violent, bloody, homicidal strategies to get there, if such turn out to seem essential.
...when one recognizes that the world is ruled by criminal gangs, one ought take into account all legitimate actions for the elimination of crime and criminals.
If the achievement of a free society is to require that a million bleeding heads of torturing tyrants, damnable dictators, pandering politicians, sadistic generals, privileged policemen, criminal soldiers and psychotic, irresponsible “servants” be hoisted on pikes to surround the palisades of the free cities, count me in for the headsman’s role, for I will not dwell in my ice-cream-and-flying-ponies fantasies so long as to preclude my own action toward the attainment thereof.
See also the interesting "man in the well" discussion in the comments:
Morality is about what we *ought* to do, and coercion in general is not the only thing we ought not to do.
An example is the “man in a well” scenario. Let’s say you fall into a well accidentally, and I get a bullhorn and tell you that I won’t let you out because you deserved it, but I’ll throw down food and water for you, until I think you’re fit to be freed. You accept voluntarily, and I now control you.
There is no NAP violation here, since I did not push you into the well. I am simply taking advantage of your bad situation. This is a case of exploitation and hierarchy– it’s voluntary as in there’s no coercion at all, but it is in no way just.