The burden of proof is not on me to prove that coercion and violence is wrong. Advocating for anarchy is a normative stance, for which descriptive analysis is not suitable.
One cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.
Just because things have been a certain way, doesn't mean they always have to be that way.
In other words you have no evidence it works so just try to say that coercion and violence is never justified (so you wouldn’t coerce a violent criminal to be punished??) under any circumstances.
If your argument was any good you wouldn’t have to try so hard to sound smart
Violence in defence of person and property is just.
One doesn't need to prove this with evidence.
The State is a coercive and violent entity by nature.
It will not defend.
It will only aggress against people and their property.
It is the most violent criminal.
Being against such an entity doesn't require proof or evidence.
The same logic you applied while implicitly assuming that a violent criminal needs to be punished applies to governments as well.
If you'd like a more systematic elaboration of my argument, check out the book 'For a new liberty' by Murray Rothbard. Or any other work by him and Ludwig von Mises.
It will save us both time and energy.
