Where there is a law, it means the threat of violence against those who would break it. For a law to be enforced means for force to be brought forth against those who perform what is defined by a government as “the law.”
Law is violence, then, and as such it is only moral to do with the law what one can morally do with violence.
Are there acts of violence that are moral? Yes. Self-defense of persons, liberty, and property against those who would infringe the natural rights associated with those. But these are only infringed by those who bring forth unnecessary violence; hence the necessity of violence is only in reply to unnecessary violence.
This is a principle which many who consider political theory do not take into consideration. Where there is a political, legal solution sought, it is a solution sought by the threat of violence. Minimum wage, subsidies, copyright, and other legal acts are not something it would be moral for an individual to enforce by the threat of violence, so such laws are unjust. When it comes down to it, such laws are no different than an individual holding a gun to someone’s head and demanding obeisance.
But one might reply that the law doesn’t necessarily result in violence. Under what conditions is this the case? Suppose someone were to break a law but then submit to the law without fighting back. Then no one must engage in actual violence.
However, this is no different than a person who, being mugged in an alley, is free from actual violence because they hand over their money. It would be their right to keep their money, and they could morally fight back if they wanted. Imagine breaking the law, and resisting its application to yourself because it is your moral right to do so. Then the government will come after you with its guns. In other words, if you choose to mind your own business as is your right, violence will be brought forth against you.
