> it is part of the "packages" and totally depends on whether the one wants to use.

Could you explain what packages are and what depends on (what?)?

> Historically violence has been a very...effective tool.

This is dramatic sci-fi for anarchists of all political stripes.

The critical reality to understand is that violence is the most ineffective tool, causing catastrophic harm for others and outcomes that the perpetrators rarely control or foresee. Revolutions can overthrow status quo power but what follows is rarely what the perpetrators aimed for. The same happens in warfare - the outcome is rarely what anyone envisioned at the start, a fundamental lessons that experts try to teach hot-headed amateurs that think warfare will solve their problems.

It also establishes violence as legitimate - usable by everyone else too, a very bad outcome and the opposite of the rule of law, incompatible with freedom; it elevates violence and destruction over life and liberty. In contrast, the American Revolution was founded on principles of freedom and law (for example, in the Declaration of Independence), did not embrace violence as desireable, and laid it out for example in the Declaration of Independence.

The most successful societies have freedom, the rule of law, and allow violence only as a last necessity to restore freedom and the rule of law.

A lot of people in the US feel like they've already tried the nice way, and it's failed. Given the increasing wealth disparity between the haves and the have-nots, it's hard to argue otherwise.

> In contrast, the American Revolution was founded on principles of freedom and law [...] did not embrace violence as desireable

That's pretty rich, since the United States only exists thanks to systemic, deliberate violence on a mass scale against the local population.

I don't know, but just look at Iran and US. Where is "rule of law"? Who is going to give it magically?

Packages = ways to "adapt" to the challenges of the world.

The American revolution literally engaged in systemic attacks against British property.

The critical reality to understand is that people have always used violence. If they don't believe that they live in a successful society, or if they believe that the success of the society is not distributed fairly (or in a way that benefits them), violence starts looking attractive.

Enlightenment and industrialization created societies that were fairer, wealthier, and more free than anything before. They also created ideologies such as communism and nationalism that killed hundreds of millions. If your ideas are good and successful in the long term but create poverty, suffering, and feelings of unfairness in time scales people care about, there will be violence.

Compromises are the key tool in preventing violence. Unfortunately, the word itself carries negative connotations in too many languages, making effective compromises less likely.

> The most successful societies have freedom, the rule of law, and allow violence only as a last necessity to restore freedom and the rule of law.

The ugly, uncomfortable part is that when a certain fraction of people decide violence is the answer, a tipping point is reached and that's what happens. Historically, people have reached that point en masse without a great deal of provocation. So for a society to remain successful--or to remain at all--it needs to prevent this tipping point from happening. Force alone can't do that.