Well, I am not going to die defending people's "right" to be racists/sexists. I am personally not a violent person, so I am not one to go around fighting people, but the less racism and sexism, the better.

You're looking at it from a different angle. VGPolyglot is suggesting there would be no centralised government, effectively leaving a power vacuum that nobody would fill, wheras you point out that someone else just filled the power vacuum that the old rule left behind. 

In a civil society, the government has a monopoly on violence (as in forcefully being able to maintain order if needed), in the form of police and military. He's suggesting that the existence of police and military by itself justifies violence against police and military.

I'm suggesting that those who support the status quo also support violence, as they support a system with a police force that keeps millions in jail, while there's a military that's present in over 100 countries and killing people in 7. Using violence to oppose this violence is valid, as that's the only way they're going to stop. They wouldn't have tanks, guns bombs, nukes and drones if they were just willing to go down peacefully. Obviously, there'll always be violence, but in a system that's based on cooperation instead of competition there should be much less of it.

The violence is used to maintain civil society. People are kept in jail to prevent them doing any more damage - either permanently or a set amount of time.

Now, as you talk about cooperation, isn't this excactly what countries like USA have been doing ever since WW2. If you think Russia is doing like shit today and USA or Germany or Japan is doing good, it's because USA, Germany and Japan have made better friends than Russia. Why do we have this system that's allowed to inflict violence on citizens, is because that's what people want. People want to be protected. They want their kids, friends and other relatives or close ones to be safe. If you can't act the way that other people in society are safe, you need to be removed from the society, either put in jail or expelled.

Many people in jail are either there for non-violent crimes, or are there for charges like theft, which would be much less of a problem if there weren't poor, desperate people. Of course people want to be protected, but the problem is that they simultaneously uphold a repressive system yet also make themselves the only people that can come to our help in times of emergencies. They force us to be reliant on them.

Because punching a "racist/sexist" person most definitely makes them reason with your point of view and question their own.

The poor and desperate would not disapear without a government. 

The increased monopoly that the government has on violence has lead to a much safer,more peacful world. Times existed where the people had the ability to contest the government, they were generally extremely chaotic. Shortly after the French revolution, none of the several groups that tried to take the position of a government had significant control over the population. It was a time of mass murder, kill or be killed.

With the rise of automatisation, perhaps, someday, no human government will be needed. But trying to remove the established without a very specific and concise plan in mind will only lead to catastrophe.

I would agree that jail is a method that is overused, ridiculously so in the US. However, if a majority of people agree with that, you have a method to provoke such change (the election.)

Trying to impose a change without the support of the majority is a planned disaster, regardless of how you proceed. If you do have the support of the majority, for something concise, or believe to have the ability to convince the majority, our established democratic system gives the tools to bring through that change (though the american system would need some serious reform...)

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, I don't just support the elimination of the state. I support the replacement of capitalism with socialism.

Much better, already. I might have confused you with another individual I was discussing with on this site, who supported full blown anrchy.

Anyways, I still maintain the position that no violence of any kind should be tolerated for the propagation of ideals. It goes aginst the democratic principles, and any distinction you could make between acceptable and unacceptable violence would end up being arbitrary. Tyranny of the majority is a legitimate danger of democracy, so we must establish a set of essential rules of ruling that must be applied regardless of context, which need to be supported regardless of your political position. I believe that the universial condemnation of violence between citizens must be among those rules.