I know the goals of liberty can not come from violence, but to be honest I don't think I could just stand there and watch some thugs taze a 7 month pregnant chick.
Am I just old fashion and wrong? Or is there a line when one can honorably start retaliating the hard way?
When can one initiate violence?
Adam Kokesh proved that even feining aggression towards the state will lead to bad things. Be simpathetic, polite and practice damage control when in a conflict with a state employee. That is your best bet to help everybody young man. I also think you were confused. Defense doesn't violate the NAP, with that said it is never moral to initiate aggression.
You'll have to define, "initiate aggression".
If I am a slave, do I have the right to attack my owners in their sleep if it's the only way to freedom?
The state is the state because it has the monopoly on violence.
It's the threat of violence that ultimately keeps people from infringing on your freedoms. We've turned over so much of that threat to the state, we have what we have cow. It's almost a perfect ratio.
As the populace's ability to make violence decreases, the states ability to oppress grows.
Beliving that you're some kind of Glenn Beck Ghandi and that's going to solve all the problems of the state is ridiculous.
Yes killing your master does not violate the NAP. A direct frontal assault on the government would be suicide though. I believe we in the liberty movement need to concintrate on long turm statogies. Since I can not go underground for a while, I am working more on infrastructure. I recommend the Bad Quaker's beyond civil disobedience series. I need not reinvent the wheel on a thread that pretty much is a simple documentation on one man's journey.