I know they aren't here to defend this asinine point of view, but for the viewers at home, this means that they literally believe that the time to revolt is when someone is locked up for stealing something (who knows though, maybe that is a 'violent dissent from the democratic rights of the property owner, I can't tell), put in jail overnight for public intoxication, or being placed in jail for not paying a fine. While I can somewhat agree with this, that still means that there hasn't been a single government in the existence of the world that isn't authoritarian and in need of immediate revolution. This includes any known functional anarchist collectives. This statement essentially leads to a state of constant revolution, an unprincipled libertarian anarchists or Trotskyist wet dream.

The logic goes like this, if you are in violation of the rules of a polity, you are by definition, dissenting from the decisions of that polity, what that means is that 'non-violent dissension' is an impossibly broad term that has never applied and can never apply to any real functional state apparatus. It is quite literally the bedrock of 'no-bedtimes, no-vegetables' libertarian anarchism. The state, under this idea, could never actually enforce any public mandates such as vaccination, public education, or speed limits without being in violation. They also could not control the business dealings of hostile corporate entities, as long as they are suitably 'non-violent'.