I've seen this topic heavily debated. Suppose you own a gun and know how to use it. The police conduct a no-knock raid on your home. What do you do?
Your choices are:
- Surrender peacefully. Hope for a fair trial, a light sentence, or a favorable plea bargain.
- Go down shooting!
Depending on the charges, you might be able to get a light sentence or even an acquittal.
I'm a good public speaker. I might choose to represent myself. That would make the judge, prosecutor, and police very uncomfortable. No matter how pro-State brainwashed you are, it's very awkward when someone intelligently questions your authority. The fact that I'd be a tough victim, might cause State thugs to choose softer targets. For some bizarre reason, State lawyers/prosecutors consider it a huge embarrassment when there's an acquittal.
A lot of people are in prison, thinking "I'll get a fair trial." Richard Simkanin, Bernard von Nothaus, Robert Kahre, and others were unfairly convicted and given long prison sentences. They all falsely believed they could convince a jury to vote "not guilty".
I wonder if any of them are regretting "If only I would have violently resisted! Being killed is as bad as spending your life in prison. At least then, I would have made some thugs pay for their crimes."
There's one obvious disadvantage of resisting violently. The police will execute you on the spot.
There aren't many people who know that the State is one big criminal conspiracy. They are outnumbered. If they all resisted violently, then the police would happily murder all of them.
If you're alone, you're easily murdered. Another possibility is forming a group for mutual self-defense. This also has problems.
By the time a militia has 100 members, you'll draw the attention of State thugs. Some undercover police will almost definitely join. You might think a guy has your back, when he's an undercover cop prepared to shoot you in the back!
Suppose you could organize a 100 person militia with no undercover cops. The police still have the resources to kidnap all 100 of you simultaneously. Usually, the police only go after the leaders. Do you really expect other people to risk their lives for you?
Both approaches have drawbacks. If you follow 100% nonviolent resistance, you're an easy target. State thugs will kidnap you, have a sham trial, and a conviction.
If you prepare for violent self-defense, you're making it a greater priority for State thugs to target you. You probably won't be able to organize a large enough militia, before State spies join or they decide to kidnap the leaders.
I read about the militia in Alaska. The leaders and many members were kidnapped. They threatened police and State bureaucrats/thugs. That's a *HUGE* mistake.
State thugs will usually threaten you before kidnapping you. They can afford to do this, because there's a huge criminal conspiracy backing them. State thugs give you a warning first, because they're the heroes in their own minds.
Threatening a State policeman/bureaucrat/lawyer/judge is *STUPID*. That's like saying "I'm a dangerous fruitcake. Please arrest me." Police can threaten you, because they have the numbers and illusion of State legitimacy. You shouldn't threaten the police.
Threatening the police is pointless. All that accomplishes is that you convince the police to have 100% cooperation and 100% enthusiasm when kidnapping/killing you.
Your goal should be to go under-the-radar. You don't provoke a bully, especially one with superior numbers and resources. Even if you're technically 100% correct, and they did abuse their power, threatening State thugs with violence is stupid.
If State thugs do harass you, consider offering small concessions so they can rack it up in their statistics as a "win". Once State thugs decide to target you, you've already lost.
Nonviolent resistance is undesirable, because you're an easy kidnapping victim. You probably won't get a fair trial. Violent resistance is undesirable, because you're heavily outnumbered.
An under-the-radar approach seems best. That's the advantage of agorism.