Seems like its legal if you can pay for it today.

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

What to you mean historically? Violence backs every government decree from speeding tickets to the maximum water flow rate of urinals.

Overwhelming violence is something that people will go to amazing lengths and spend nearly all of their economic surplus to avoid.

Of course violence is legal. Laws themselves carry no weight if they aren't backed by a credible threat of violence.

> 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.