Capitalism requires policing to keep people from stealing.
all ruling systems i have taken serious so far require force somewhere, somehow.
not all uses of force are equivelant and that is common sense.
Viewing post in Is this a political satire?
There is a big difference between using defensive force aginst agressors and using aggresion against innocent people.
State sponsored violence is bad and should be rejected by all. No kind person would support such a system. Just look at the recent protests against police brutality. Of course that is nothing compared to what people face under Socialism or Communism.
Someone who steals from private hands is as much of an aggressor/innocent as someone who steals from social hands.
Note that socialism is not about public (government-controlled) goods but socially owned (community/cooperative/group-controlled) goods. ie. in this case you should compare it to someone who steals from your local community (let's say.. a building where the ownership is shared) something that belongs to a group or a collective. Not necessarily to the government.
You are probably gonna argue that it's not the same to take money from someone than to steal a good. But as a matter of fact, taking money from someone is what is done in every purchase. When someone takes a good from your shop without paying for it, you are actually forcing him to give you money in exchange, in the same way as you pay taxes in exchange from being able to be part of a community with its benefits and obligations. You can always emigrate to the United Arab Emirates or any other country without taxes if you don't want to be in a community that has taxes as part of its social contract established by "we, the people".
You can't expect to have the police defend you from stealing and at the same time refuse to pay the salary of the police (which in the USA it's publicly-funded with taxes, same as the army, the sewage, the garbage collection/treatment, and other "evil" social services).
I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. I never implied they were equivalent, what I said is that stealing is an aggression also when you are stealing from social/public funds.
I don't think killing 1 person is equivalent to killing 100, but I would still say both are aggressions and I'd rather be defended against both situations.
The person I was replying to (Wulfgar_3D) assumed that stealing from someone was an aggression (to be defended against), but that it isn't an aggression to commit tax fraud (which as I illustrated, it's like refusing to pay after a purchase... or like not paying the rent , the electricity or the internet). For him, defending against tax fraud IS what's "using aggresion against innocent people", and my point was to show that that's just hypocrisy.
Calling "innocent" to someone who doesn't want to pay for the police, at the same time as he wants to use "defensive force against agressors" is not making much sense, specially considering that you need police for such defense..