Some versions of NAP allow for violence against violence. Given the surveillance state we live in, it seems like innocents should have masks and government people should be unmasked.
Additionally, it also seems that video of government peoples keeps being masked, unless of course it meets their needs.
Thoughts?
I wouldn't call it "violence against violence" I would call it self defense. There's an important distinction. My understanding of the NAP describes violence (in the physical sense) as an initiation of force. From that perspective, it's impossible to respond with violence as that would no longer be an initiation, but a response. If the innocents truly are innocent, why would they need masks? On the contrary, they should be known and celebrated as heroes, right? Those who changed the world for the better did so with an identity which could be known and a character that supported it.
Thanks Luke, I'm still trying to learn the jargon of anarchy and the distinction of self-defense is obvious. So a next step on that would be what about asking friends for "reinforcement" in a self-defense situation?
Often only after a conflict would the "rebels" reveal themselves. My family when in Cuba wouldn't have been as bold. In much older Masonry, they were anonymous outside the order until a new level of freedom had been won. In fact, the whole order was anonymous until 1717. Governments can go after any combatant's family or other connections at will, so that anonymity is important from that angle as well. Also, in older masonry, they weren't interested in being celebrated as much as winning freedoms.