Idk anyone has said this explicitly yet, but there is a HUGE moral difference between violence against public property vs violence against private property.
Personally I totally understand the equivalencies between BLM protests and the protests at the Capitol. Both were largely fuelled by well-intentioned peaceful protestors. A small minority of these protestors had clear goals of inciting violence. We saw looting and destruction of property. We saw people get shot, we saw police misconduct.
I totally understand it. It vaguely feels like any moral judgement we apply to the BLM protests, should apply equally to the Capitol protests.
However I want to highlight one clear difference. The protection of property is not an ethical good in-and-of itself. In order to judge “just how bad” the destruction of property really was, we need greater context. Who’s property is being destroyed, and what are the consequences?
In one case, this destruction was aimed towards the livelihoods of ordinary US citizens. In a matter of minutes, years of a private individual’s earnings, savings and labour, could be going up in flames, with limited guarantee to insurance compensation.
In a second case, the destruction of property was aimed at a rather different entity, an organisation, an organisation which is granted different ethical standards than the rest of us. This organisation has a guaranteed income, acquired through coercive means. This organisation has no market accountability. This organisation has jurasdiction over millions, perhaps billions of people, in ways which nobody signed up for. Regardless of the destruction against their property, this organisation will not reduce in size or scope, and will continue to expand. This expansion will occur without the consent of its subjects, and regardless of the forces which seek to undermine it.
I am not saying the destruction of public property was a good thing. Some of you in this subreddit may secretly believe the destruction of public property IS a good thing. But, let me be clear. I disagree. Destruction and violence is in my view is only justifiable, if it is likely to directly lead to the greater imposition of personal human freedoms. These protestors had no such goals, and no respective plans. This protest was unwise, unruly and damaging to the country. This protest was not good, not for the country, not for the woman who got shot, not for the looters and agitators who are now dealing with the courts.
Regardless of all that, due to the protestors’ focus on damaging public property, as opposed to private property, I hold these protestors in higher regard. In this case, they are the lesser of two evils.
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society