To the demagogue of violence:
It is so black and white.
On belief and contention, what is yours is yours.
Are you right?
Others don't think so. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that part or all of what you claim is not, in fact, yours, but theirs or ours.
Their reason may be flawed. Their belief may not be based on reason at all, but merely faith or ignorance. They may not be aware of or have ever been exposed to your reasoning for your belief.
Still, you want them to respect your contention. You demand they respect your contention on pain of … pain.
You have declared yourself as the unjust god that condemns a child to eternal death for the sin of not knowing him.
When confronted with your logic and reason, will they recognize their flaws and change their ways? The answer is not yes or no. Some have and some haven't.
But, your demagoguery has left you dialogically estopped from complaining about their demand that you respect their contention on pain of pain.
If, as you contend, you are right, moral, or ethical in violently defending what you believe to be your property from them, then they must also be right, moral, or ethical in violently defending what they believe to be their property from you.
You have rendered moot the question of who actually owns the property in question.
Will they ever respect your claim in their court with their juries? Nope. Will they ever stop grasping for toys you leave within arms reach of their sandbox? Not in a million years.
Not without your violence, and not with it.
But, if your property is your property, and you are right to defend your property, and you know they will claim any property within arms reach of their sandbox, why did you leave your property hanging around the sandbox? Do you only care about your property when another child reaches for it?
What a wonderful world where every person would look at property they don't personally own as belonging to another and, thus, untouchable whether protected or not. Wonderful, as in devoid of all humans. In such a world no property could ever come in to ownership; no tools, no food, no water – no humans.
For basic human survival, property must come into individual ownership. For continued survival, the individual must be prepared to protect his life and savings. However, if your entire protection plan consists of forfeiting the life and liberty of anyone who believes, rightly or wrongly, that some property ownership is in contention, then consistency demands that they, also, can forfeit your life and liberty over the same property.
You compare them to a common thief, and in some respects your comparisons are apt. However, the mugger threatens your life for the purpose of depriving you of property he in no way, shape, or form believes is his. No ownership claim is made and thus none must be respected.
On the other hand, the nameless they honestly believe that you are unjustly withholding their property from them. They legitimately believe they have moral justification for securing that property through violent means that your demagoguery validates.
On the question of ownership, you, of course, are right and the mob, of course, is wrong. But, your declaration that "violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer" ensures such questions remain immaterial. In one short phrase you descend from reasoning creature to the lowly animal that is the mob.
You debase yourself, sir.