By ‘regulations’, I mean that the real world is full of things you are not allowed to say. As a personal example, I cannot argue for the virtues of criminal actions as effectively as I might otherwise be able to, because citing my own criminal experiences would incriminate myself. The great irony of pacifism is that pacifists are only able to appear to have coherent positions because the threat of violence keeps their rhetorical opponents silent — but, then, of course: the state knows that pacifism serves it, even if some pacifists make the grand joke of pretending to be anarchists.

In the 1800s, many anarchists refused to defend themselves in court — just as many anarchists now refuse to call police or vote, under any circumstances. However, enough of these principled anarchists went to jail doing this that it was only the minority of “unprincipled” ones that got to pass on their traditions and ideas — and so, modern anarchists find this idea to be ridiculous.

To be clear, so do I.

But, I might not think it was so silly if many of the people I respected were doing it — or, if I could readily access any arguments in its favor. The reason why this practice died out had nothing to do with rational discussion leading to more and more people deciding that it was immoral or impractical, and everything to do with state-violence acting as a form of “natural” selection within the memeplex.

Pacifists, too, benefit from this sort of statist selection. Despite the idea being ridiculous, something that any remotely rational or serious radical would dismiss out of hand, it persists amongst some so-called anarchists because pacifists go to jail a whole lot less, because they’re less effective at direct action. This means that, in a certain indirect way, pacifism as a moral position benefits extensively from what are effectively violently-propagated state subsidies.