@Shambles: We agree i think about violence in politics - whenever any one i know (or me) watches some politics and says 'i wish someone would just shoot that cunt michael gove/gideon osbourne/david camera on/iritable duncan syndrome/niggle farridge/tony blair/barracks o'bomber' etc (which is pretty frequent), i just think that it's like a hydra: killing them would make two grow back in its place, even more foaming at the mouth with hate for their class enemies, only this time with more public sympathy for their position (plus i can't even kill spiders, so humans are out).
And while i think the violence would be inevitable, doesn't mean i/we have to start it - go ghandi (or occupy) style, and it's so much harder for the authorities to use their propaganda against you (though they still make shit up, or just get one of their thugs to dress as a hippy and try to get some other hippies to bomb a bridge (like they did in occupy)).
I agree with Mikail Bakunin when talking about whether the 'ends justify the means' in relation to the marxist 'dictatorship of the proletariat' idea (which is supposed to be temporary to keep stuff together until the socialist state is ready (the 'ends')); he warned 'the means become the end', which turned out to be very prophetic about how the bolshevik's version turned out to just be a dictatorship. In the end i think you have to keep the option of violent resistance of some sort somewhere in the back of your mind, even if only weathermen-style with no deaths (except your own inept bombmakers), just as the state has the ever present threat of police violence (and if they don't cut it they can send the army in to 'peterloo' yo ass).
I don't really put much trust in 'reformism' to magically make the state fairer over time; there still needs to constant pressure or things just get unreformed again - and sometimes that involves 'violent' resistance of some sort (like the suffragettes or the poll tax riots (the easy examples)). Where the state has been incrementally reformed over the last 100 years, seems like the big changes have only really come when there's been a real threat of uprising and revolution in the background (post war social democracy, civil rights movement, poll tax, etc) - and the changes have pretty soon started to be reversed when the 'threat' goes away (like the post war welfare state starting to be dismantled about the time the soviets collapsed)
....
Aaaaanyway... On the topic: i think this is just an example of how the ruling neoliberal elite (which ukip represents, despite banker-niggle trying to appear a 'man of the people' (ha!)) will use 'libertarian' positions to forward their stated agenda of dismantling government and public services and replacing it with the economic democracy of international corporate power (one dollar one vote). I'm very distrustful of straight up libertarian positions (in the modern american incarnation), as they're an obvious trojan horse to me - Even though i'd probably (sometimes) call myself anarchist, the endless mantra of 'get rid of gubberment' would at this point get rid of many more hard-won state protections from captial for normal people than it would give liberties - the rich sponsors of libertarianism don't need the state protections, so they just see the liberty ('freedom to keep my money' which they inherited or extracted from someone else's sweat). We can sort out the government later, after we sort out the international oligarchic power above the governments (and there seems no way to do that currently without the gubberment)
)).
