Never start a fight, but always finish it.

In general, no.

Depending on the situation, as a last resort, yes.

Lemmy does. I don’t, but Lemmy will shank you in a dark alley for drug money, like an American Badger.

the law requires I say no

When used as a defense against violence or other severely harmful actions, yes.

The threat needs to either be imminent or an ongoing perpetuation of violence or other severely harmful action. An example of an ongoing severely harmful action would include being restrained physically or geographically and being starved.

There’s no one size fits all answer. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Self defense can apply to systems. Insurance for example. From what I understand United Health Care did change some policies because of Luigi.

If the rule of law fails to protect the people and stops enforcing the law equally for all, then yeah, I think violence is all we have left.

This is a really good article going over class basis of pacifism, and touching on its historical failure to undo injustice:

What about Pacifism / pacifist socialism? Is violence necessary to acheive socialism? What about Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi? audiobook

Some quotes:

Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?

It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.

• Engels - Principles of Communism

On the question of whether the armed struggle is the only path to liberation, I would answer that at least in the case of our country, we have no other path. And we think that in the immense majority of latin american countries, there is no other path than the armed struggle. It seems to be the same case for countries in Asia and Africa. In general imperialism counts on, in every way, joining forces with the oligarchy, of every country, to impede the democratic revolution in every country. And its hanging people with a rope that can only be cut by armed struggle.

Revolutionaries didn’t choose armed struggle as the best path. Its the path the oppressors imposed on the people. So people only have two choices: To suffer, or to fight.

• Interview with Fidel Castro on the question of violence

I condemn the opressor and agressor violence only

Everyone condones violence. People just have different definitions for the word, and extents/reasoning to allow it. Pretty sure even Buddhists are allowed to protect themselves through violence.

Depends. The average person? No.

The cop who just found me dumpster diving trying to find something to eat for the first time in days who screamed at me so hard I started to have a panic attack? Yeah.

I abhor violence, both witnessing and exercising it, but I accept and support it if it is used as a form of defense against abuse, whether systematic or personal.

In short: I personally would not set fire to an ICE vehicle, but I would applaud anyone who did.