Jardine (continued)

"And no violence is used to maintain the State and enforce obedience, except when they're enforcing obedience; and the police only ever act in "self-defence" except when they're initiating force; and initiating force is a crime of aggressive violence when a subject of government does it, but not when government does it?"
Now you're just being stupid!

I make a distinction between force and violence: the latter is intended to cause injury or is done with reckless disregard for whether or not it causes injury. The state can use force to enforce the law but SHOULD NOT resort to violence except in self defence or the defence of others.

I did not claim that the current situation is as it should be.

You're only repeating your double-talk.

No, I'm restating my position and explaining why your misinterpretation of it was wrong.

However it appears I'm wasting my time, as your only objective seems to be to belittle it; you've no interest in actually understanding it.

Am I correct in inferring this?