Whether that is true or not there is a big difference between what you wrote (stating an opinion) and what the other commenter wrote (appearing to advocate violence). That's why it's attracting downvotes. You're attracting them because it's obvious.
Actually he is advocating for peace. The suggestion of breaking the rules of the game balances the playing field. As it is a few can initiate bureaucratic violence against others basically free of consequences.
If we were to judge which act of violence is justifiable a few broken ribs is nothing compared to losing your life savings or going to prison. The issue here is that physical violence is a taboo. There are good reasons for that though it's undeniably that the cowing of the masses is beneficial to those that practice other forms of violence.
The escalation spiral of physical violence ultimately leads to a sufficiently motivated insane group killing millions of people with a dirty nuke, or blackmailing the rest of society with such.
Whereas the escalation spiral of bureaucratic and legal maneuvering cannot do more than normalize taking away people's reputations, jobs, or homes.
No, because as Popper states the paradox of tolerance, we only use violence when the opponent has denied other people forms of change (like debate and peaceful protest), and the instead use violence.
Lawyers aren't prone to engaging in violence instead of debate or using the system (which favours them, as they know it so well), so no, it doesn't lead there, nor does any other group you stick in there - even modern day Nazis, who as a group are (largely) peaceful now. Hence, we debate them now, if they change again, we would fight them.
