Aggressors can almost always find a way to rationalize their violence. When they are in the majority, they can self-congratulate, claim that they were only following orders or social norms. Defending one's self requires no such mental gymnastics.
No matter how you slice it, violence is an inescapable part of the human condition. People debate the non-aggression principle in depth and try to reach idealistic conclusions. Principles are important, but human affairs rarely neatly fit with these ideals.
Take that stance too far and you get spree killers.
Or, as they always seem to argue, "oppressed individuals defending their rights against a social majority by any means".
For me that is the problem with the original quote at the top of this thread and much of the article.
> The American cult of the individual denies not just community but the very idea of society. No one owes anything to anyone.
If you start with a political bias and simply argue towards your predetermined goal, you become nothing more than an ideologue. From that point it is easy to make sweeping generalizations about perceived enemies. That brand of collectivism isn't compassionate or community forming. Similarly, individualism taken to an extreme can be dehumanizing as in your example.
Partisan pundits will rarely concede that they don't have all of the answers. Humility and generosity is key.
No matter how you slice it, violence is an inescapable part of the human condition. People debate the non-aggression principle in depth and try to reach idealistic conclusions. Principles are important, but human affairs rarely neatly fit with these ideals.