A rule not ultimately backed by the threat of violence is merely a suggestion. States rely on laws enforced by men ready to do violence against lawbreakers. Every tax, every code and every licensing requirement demands an escalating progression of penalties that, in the end, must result in the forcible seizure of property or imprisonment by armed men prepared to do violence in the event of resistance or non–compliance… Violence isn’t the only answer, but it is the final answer.
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force.
Mr. Donovan is speaking of rules. A boycott as a rule, a government-mandated boycott, will be backed up by the forcible seizure of property or imprisonment by armed men prepared to do violence in the event of resistance or non–compliance.
Opt-in boycotts, boycotts not required by rules, can be non-violent as you rightly point out.
Jack Donovan, Violence is Golden http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/03/violence-is-golden/
Karl Popper, The Open Society
You can threaten non-violence, like a boycott.
Mr. Donovan is speaking of rules. A boycott as a rule, a government-mandated boycott, will be backed up by the forcible seizure of property or imprisonment by armed men prepared to do violence in the event of resistance or non–compliance.
Opt-in boycotts, boycotts not required by rules, can be non-violent as you rightly point out.