So do you take all communications of reactions which can be seen as negative or unfavourable by the other party as threats? — Agustino

No, of course not. If all my tomatoes get stolen or vandalised, I won't grow any next year. I'm not threatening anyone.

Without negotiating them, we won't be able to live together. — Agustino

We can't live together.

I think this is an overgeneralization. Every communication of how you will react is not violence, though perhaps it is a threat.

But if your communication of consequences are "If you take my ball, I'm going to punch you" then that is a threat, and said threat is violent.

No, of course not. If all my tomatoes get stolen or vandalised, I won't grow any next year. I'm not threatening anyone. — unenlightened

Why not? Maybe the person taking them wants you to keep growing them. If he knew this, he would modify his behaviour and would not take all of them anymore, only some. It does count as violence since it is opposed to the desire of the other, and you're forcing him not to find anymore tomatoes there.

We can't live together. — unenlightened

So then how would society be possible?

But if your communication of consequences are "If you take my ball, I'm going to punch you" then that is a threat, and said threat is violent. — Moliere

Agreed. But do you agree with the need for this kind of communication in order for society to be at all possible?

Teddy Roosevelt (who supposedly claimed the saying is West African) meant that it's best to be soft and friendly up front and keep forcefulness on the back burner.

Your immune system doesn't follow that rule. It generates a multi-pronged army as fast as it can and destroys your enemies, though all you might experience is a stuffy nose.

Agreed. But do you agree with the need for this kind of communication in order for society to be at all possible? — Agustino

Need? No. I think need is too strong a word. I think it is possible for us to live in peace. I don't think it is easy to attain, given our circumstances, but possible.

Violence begets violence. We live in a cycle of violence.

I am inclined to think there are cases of necessary violence, though, just not related to the order of society. A society of violence is an unstable thing which can only continue with more sophisticated forms of violence to keep the reaction of violence under check.

However, I don't think our attitude towards violence are right. I think violence is a temptation, something that gratifies a darker part of our humanity. I don't think we need institutional glorifications of violence to amplify what is already a possible natural inclination, ala the many holidays dedicated to military glory.

The better attitude to necessary violence is somber and sober. In the moment, in the thick of a social context of violence we are drunk on excitement. It can become a kind of drug, in a way. But in stepping back and seeing what violence does is destroy, on scales hard to fathom, the individual life of so many people - including those who survive the initial high. Having just read the Tao, I think this verse puts it well:

Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.

Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.

Now, we are not all decent men. And violence is indeed something which can excite and we can become addicted to. But I'm of the opinion that if we're going to institute some kind of celebration of something that it shouldn't be violence and war and all these things which are already tempting and addicting, and which cause much sorrow and evil.

You are paranoid suspicious lot, so here are the defenceless tomatoes in person.

After eight years I was expecting something a little more exciting than tomatoes. But given your recent comments, I've given up on grenades. :(

No violence, no state. But no state, more violence. Lamentable. If we all just stayed online insulting each other rather than fucking about in the real world, we might be able to solve this.

No violence, no state. But no state, more violence. Lamentable. If we all just stayed online insulting each other rather than fucking about in the real world, we might be able to solve this. — Baden

Forget the state. Without the kind of violence that they are talking about you cannot even have this forum.

I think it is possible for us to live in peace. — Moliere

Okay, how do we live in peace if I want X, and you also want X, and we both can't have it? Must there not be some means or manner for the two of us to negotiate, or at least for the two of us to determine who gets X and who doesn't? If there is such a means, then that means itself is violent, under the definition we are using.

Violence begets violence. We live in a cycle of violence. — Moliere

That's not true. Violence does not always produce resentment. I gave you the above scenario, when a main contractor pays the subcontractor less than agreed price due to delays. That is a violent act. But it does not beget resentment, so long as the other party understands it as reasonable.

This is the great Platonic insight. We can have order precisely because reason can modulate the spirited and desirous aspects of the soul. People only become resentful when they interpret the violence done to them as unfair, unjust, undeserved.

If your son understands that if he smokes he harms his body, and for that reason, he upsets you, then he will understand why you're telling him that it won't be fair for you to give him his weekly allowance if he keeps doing it.

That is how we live in peace. Unenlightened seems to allow this desirous aspect of the soul take him to an extreme, whereby he takes any form of violence to mean the absence of peace. He starts thinking in black and white instead of dialectically. What unenlightened proposes is chaos, and the dissolution of not just the state, but also the family, associations, businesses, and anything that involves cooperation. Cooperation is based on mutual understanding and mutual concessions.

As Jordan Peterson would say, people must know that you can bite, even if you never do. Otherwise they will not respect you.

What makes you believe this?

What I most hear to this question is that there would be warlords and gangsters in a world without a state, just as there was and is in parts of the world without states that function.

Warlords and gangsters are a serious problem. States, though, organize violence to levels incredible. Is there something besides the above thought experiment that leads you to believe that states decrease violence?

What makes you believe this? — Moliere

All the evidence.

E.g.





https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/theory-the-inverse-relationship-between-warfare-and-homicide/
http://primarydeposits.blogspot.com/2012/10/pinker-and-archaeology.html

Tyranny doesn't always come from without. In some cultures people are taught in childhood to internalize a dictatorial figure. People of that kind won't need much of a threat from an external force to enjoy peace.

Weapons are usually left over from the last conflict. Prior to WW2, American soldiers practiced with broomsticks because they didn't have guns. Now they practice the instructions for launching ICBMs.

We're all created by the worst things that happened. It's a good reason to think about what you're creating when you decide to be an asshole.

@Moliere States reduce violence by monopolizing it.

It takes two hands to clap. Clapping is impossible when one hand's closed into a fist.

Even if we achieve world peace we'd still need weapons just in case interstellar visitors aren't the friendly type.

Not to make a Supreme Court case out of it, but I have some trouble taking these graphs at face value, or even very seriously. At first I was confused why a city in 1840’s California called Kato was so darn violent? Murderous gold prospectors, perhaps? Upon further review, the Kato (also called Cahto) were/are a Native American tribe. Their current population is about 250 people. And according to Wikipedia, it was never more than a few thousand at any given time:

Population Further information: Population of Native California
Estimates for the pre-contact populations of most native groups in California have varied substantially. Alfred L. Kroeber put the 1770 population of the Kato at 500.[9] Sherburne F. Cook estimated the pre-contact populations of the Kato at 1,100.[10] James E. Myers thought the total might be 500.[11]
See also Cahto traditional narratives
...

So extrapolating the data over 100,000 people (who never existed simultaneously or even as a sum total) is very distorted and inaccurate because the original sample size is so small. The Kato may or may not have been particularly violent. They probably were. Many Native American tribe fought with each other and amongst themselves, very often lethally. They were humans obviously, not angels wearing beads and moccasins. Mostly the statistical evidence is anecdotal either way since they lived much of their existence away from statisticians and anthropologists, unfortunately. But this makes it seem like there rivers turned red by the blood of the dead. For that violent imagery made real, one need only look at little later in US history at the Civil War.

As for the rest of the first graph, almost a dozen of the examples are from (Papua) New Guinea, which is a well-known anthropological oddity. It is like the evolutionary fluke Madagascar of tribal culture, existing in small island(s) and producing bizarre (to me anyway) behaviors and beliefs.

And on the far right of the graph showing almost no visible marking in the graph for violent deaths in 20th century USA and 2005 (world population)? :chin: Let’s just say that I’m going to still keep my doors locked at night. :sweat: All just in my silly opinion...

Speculation time... If I had a time machine, would I rather live now in the USA... or back then with the Kato? Well, I’m kind of used to the present reality. But if I had to be born over? Either way would be fine, might even lean towards going back in time for the heck of it. (I’d make sure I brushed my teeth very well because of the lack of pain-free dentistry.)

And on the far right of the graph showing almost no visible marking in the graph for violent deaths in 20th century USA and 2005 (world population)? — 0 thru 9

Well, because they're in single figures, they're too small to see in proportion to the other figures. That only underlines the massive differences.

But if I had to be born over? Either way would be fine, might even lean towards going back in time for the heck of it. — 0 thru 9

That's fair enough, but all things being equal, you'd have a higher chance of dying a violent death and certainly a shorter life expectancy.

But the figures are there. There may be some error in them as it is difficult to make reliable estimates the further back you go in time but it's highly unlikely they're out by a factor of hundreds, which they would need to be for states to be more violent than non-states.

Fixed important typo that reversed meaning - refresh page plz.

Tyranny doesn't always come from without. In some cultures people are taught in childhood to internalize a dictatorial figure. People of that kind won't need much of a threat from an external force to enjoy peace. — frank

This is a very arbitrary way of thinking about the phenomenon, which actually obscures any understanding of the existence of man. First, people are taught everything in childhood - even NOT internalizing a dictatorial figure. That is also, indeed, something they - internalize.

Second, why should we conceive it as a dictatorial figure, instead of a moral conscience? Then those who lack moral conscience are (rightly) seen as deficient, as being unable to access an integral part of what it means to be fully human, instead of (inadequately) perceived as being free. Psychoanalysis becomes deficient when you overextend it to the point where all guilt is interpreted as the internalization of a dictatorial figure or neuroticism. It is true that guilt can have a neurotic aspect (when it becomes a stumbling block to change, when one dwells on it beyond the point of usefulness, etc.). But to think this is the only aspect of guilt is to fail to see the phenomenon in its entirety. And not only. In so doing, guilt actually becomes unexplainable. Why is it at all possible for people to feel guilt? Sure, they are indoctrinated in childhood, but why is such indoctrination at all possible? Why is this a possibility of the human being?

At the same time, understanding why such an obfuscation takes place isn't difficult. The desirous part of the soul, which wants to do solely as it pleases, can't wait for a reason to take control. What better reason than to reverse the truth, and replace it with a lie?

The truth is that having a moral conscience, being capable to feel guilt - these are possible for the human being because they are useful. Guilt is necessary in order for us to be social creatures. It is also necessary for us in order to change. Meditating on guilt can indeed produce changes in one's character.

So yes, I agree that people with a highly developed moral conscience do not need an external force to enjoy peace. They know that if they do wrong, they will let themselves down, and won't be able to look in the mirror any longer.

However, such people are 0.1% of the population or less. For the rest, the whip is needed.

(It's not that black and white - most people need just a little "threat" to be nice, decent people. But those who need no threat at all are very rare. And those who need a lot of threat, they are also rare - psychopaths, etc.)

There seems to be some agreement here. No one is advocating violence as a good in itself. Everyone seems to quite like peace.

And everyone agrees that it is the other chap that is the problem. I need to protect my tomatoes from the other chap, and that's why I need a government with a defence budget and some warships and fighter jets and so on. Putin wants my heritage tomatoes. Or Binlala, or someone. Or they just don't want me to have them, and want to blow them up. Maybe Allah doesn't want infidels to have tomatoes. Or else it's the Mafia, that wants me to pay them for 'protecting' my tomatoes.

Anyway, it's the other chap that's the problem, and my violence is down to him. That's where we are, isn't it?

I'm willing to love my neighbour but not to trust him. It seems a lot easier to trust myself. Though that might also be a mistake.

...And unfortunately my neighbour is aware of that.

Some other chaps are sociopaths. And even non-sociopaths can be temporarily seized by darker passions.

Have you ever watched children play?

There is the game theory thing of suspicion, but it's not just a self-contained hall of mirrors, floating on air. There's real non-defensive violence, too. Violence has a material ground, if you like, which supports the formal excrescences of each-worried-about-the-other. The grounding runs that way, not vice versa (though the formal excrescences feed back into it, once it gets going.)

Have you ever watched children play? — csalisbury

Have you ever watched the world that children play in?

Anyway, it's the other chap that's the problem, and my violence is down to him. That's where we are, isn't it? — unenlightened

I have an alternative. Violence in-itself is not a problem. Whether it's good or bad depends on the context. You just have an unnatural aversion to violence, such that you don't see that it's ever good.

It's never inherently good. It can only be a pragmatic good.

yeah

It's never inherently good. It can only be a pragmatic good. — Baden

I disagree on the distinction here I think. What is violence in-itself? To me, in-itself it is always contextual. That is part of its essence. You cannot have contextless violence.

Wrath is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason. Because it's an inherent evil.