For anybody who peruses Reddit from time to time, you may have found yourself in a thread discussing the topic of punching National Socialists (we'll use that term since the colloquialism is filtered). If you [i]have[/i] found yourself in such a thread, you've probably noticed this common line of reasoning coming from those who claim that it is justified to inflict violence on National Socialists. [i]"Their ideas are inherently violent. Therefore, they are violent. Violent people deserve to be punched/attacked/what-have-you."[/i] If you disagree with that line of reasoning, please explain why. If you agree, I have a few questions for you. 1) What makes somebody's ideas "inherently violent" to the point where that person's very existence is aggressive enough to warrant a solid uppercut? 2) If ideas are inherently violent and can justify punishing somebody, could the state not justifiably prosecute these people for their violence and then imprison them for their ideas? For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the state passes proper legislation (although consider what that legislation would contain). 3) If we accept the premise that these people are violent because their ideas necessitate violence (as in, if you accept their ideas then you tolerate violence against particular innocent people), then could I not punch a Democratic Socialist (or hell, maybe even an American liberal or conservative) because of their urge to extort me?