Just exploring your idea further.

Say person A's actions will directly result in person B getting hurt (punched in the face by person A). You're saying it's a noble goal to prevent that, even if violence is used to do so - "If government was to limit itself to that task and that task alone I could consider it a grey area."

No say person A's actions will directly lead to the starvation of a million children. You would oppose stopping them by violence. Why?

It seems such an odd ethic. You'd prevent me from punching a person in the nose, but you wouldn't prevent me from polluting the main drinking source of an entire village, killing thousands.

Who in their right mind would have a million children in a place with only one drinking source?

Who in their right mind would have a million children in a place with only one drinking source? — Tzeentch

All right. 50.

Who in their right mind would have children at all in a place with only one drinking source?

And in a place where drinking-source-polluting ruffians roam about, no less?

Shall I have children in a place where food is scarce, and then justify my violence towards the people around me because my poor children will starve if I won't?

Are you seriously trying to claim that no children have ever died from contaminated drinking sources?

Shall I have children in a place where food is scarce, and then justify my violence towards the people around me because my poor children will starve if I won't? — Tzeentch

You won't have a choice. The children will be located wherever the most powerful bully forces them, and they'll have access to whatever drinking source the most powerful bully allows them access to.

You're denying the right for anyone to try and stop that arrangement.

Who in their right mind would have children at all in a place with only one drinking source?

And in a place where drinking-source-polluting ruffians roam about, no less? — Tzeentch

So in ruffian controlled territory, families ought to just up sticks and move?

Odd then that you use the exact opposite argument again the position that one could up sticks and move if one disagrees with the laws of one's government.

The children will be located wherever the most powerful bully forces them, and they'll have access to whatever drinking source the most powerful bully allows them access to. — Isaac

Sounds like an awful circumstance to have children in. Anyone so foolish shouldn't be surprised when things go to hell in a handbasket, nor should they be under the impression that questionable decisions on their part would justify their use of violence.

So in ruffian controlled territory, families ought to just up sticks and move? — Isaac

They certainly could. Or they could stay and protest - they are being wronged after all. They shouldn't resort to violence.

They shouldn't resort to violence. — Tzeentch

Why not?

Violence is for hypocrites and animals. When one resorts to violence when other options are open to them, they shouldn't protest when others use those same means against them, and that's exactly what violence invites. Violence breeds more violence - the cycle of abuse.

Violence breeds more violence - the cycle of abuse. — Tzeentch

It doesn't seem to. I've been to a number of protests, some have turned violent. Often (though not always) the police's threat of violence is enough to reduce the violence.

At an interpersonal level, violence may breed violence, but with government, military, and policing, you'd find very little argument that their collective threat of violence has actually bred more violence than would be the case without.

The scale of warfare and its destructiveness have only ever increased during mankind's history.

You don't see that states going to war are simply an extension from the poor family and the ruffians from your hypothetical? It's outsourced violence. And ironically, no one ever seems to agree over who are the poor families and who are the ruffians.

And what about the many violent rebellions against authority that history has known, with death tolls going in the millions?

The numbers are irrelevant because you've no contrasting numbers for a modern society without government. That may number in the billions.

Having no contrasting example you must rely on argument, not evidence. So by what mechanism do you see violence reducing absent policing or militaries? What mechanism do you imagine restrain every would be violent criminal from simply carrying out their violent will?

People who thought "the numbers were irrelevant" tended not to find themselves on the good side of history.

What a joke had Stalin or Mao said: "If I hadn't killed them, many more would have died!"

We're not talking about a mere change in policy here. We can easily argue that Stalin or Mao need not have killed all those people by pointing to human societies where that didn't happen.

You can't point to a modern community with no government and say "look, less violence"

What modern community with no government has the means to hold the world at gunpoint with nuclear weapons, sir?

In what modern community with no government does the toll of violence rise into the millions?

There are no modern communities without governments so this line of argument is fruitless.

Here, however, is the Global Peace Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index.
You'll note absolutely no link whatsoever between more laissez faire governments and lower violence.

No governments at all may reduce violence, they may not. We've no way to tell.

What we can tell is that less interventionist government does not lead to less violence.

Note the color of the United States, one of history's most violent nations, and then look what other nations it supposedly compares to.

And every NATO country should be red, just like the United States, since they all outsource their violence to the US.

Yep.



Agreed.


None of which removes the fact that there's no evidence of a link between more interventionist government and increased violence.

Decreased governance does not appear to decrease violence, so it's hard to see an argument that no governance would.

Here's a list of countries by public sector size https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_sector_size, so you can compare. I see no link at all with measures of violence, do you?

If you accept my idea of outsourced violence, then I think there's ample reason to believe ever more powerful governments (which rely on ever more elaborate systems of violence to exist) result in ever larger wars, thus more violence.

Ironically, it seems that these governments have now reached the threshold for outward violence, since they can hardly threaten with more than destroying the planet.

They are now starting to turn their violence inward, into some sort of "new wave authoritarianism" the rotten fruits of which only time will reveal. (But 20th century totalitarianism gives us an idea)

If you accept my idea of outsourced violence, then I think there's ample reason to believe ever more powerful governments (which rely on ever more elaborate systems of violence to exist) result in ever larger wars, thus more violence. — Tzeentch

I've literally just cited the evidence to the contrary. Bigger governments do not lead to more violence. The Global Peace Index takes several measures of outsourcing into account including UN funding and weapons sales. There's still no link between size of government and violence.

The US has a tiny government per capita, a very low tax regime and a very small public sector. It's by far the most violent government of recent decades.

Norway has a moderate sized government, a huge public sector and very high taxes. Its barely been involved in any wars and has a very low level of internal conflict.

That index is nonsense.

Also, Norway is not a state, it's a vassal.

That index is nonsense. — Tzeentch

Try this one then https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index

And here's a different measure of government size. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP

Still no link.

What do you believe that shows, if not that governments are extremely violent?

What do you believe that shows — Tzeentch

It shows that decreasing the size of government, by any measure at all, does not decrease violence.

Your argument that "violence begets violence", if you include the sort of coercive violence governments use, is false. Countries with larger governments (more coercive threat of violence) are not more violent places by any measure, including outsourcing, war, crime, whatever.

Your position is contradicted by the evidence.

The most powerful governments in the world, US / NATO, China and Russia all are holding the world at nuclear gunpoint (and they should all be coloured pitch black).

I'd say that's supports my position, rather than undermines it.

My response would be, don't try to control people against their will. — Tzeentch

I don't know. I think that depends on the will of said people. If the will is wholly self serving and caustic to the respect, tolerance or social cohesion of others, I think they need to be reigned in as parents reign in their children's maladaptive and deviant behaviour for their own benefit.

In an ideal world there would be no power play, manipulation and control because everyone would be "on the same page" : ie have the best intentions for one another and the best reasoning capability to implement those intentions.

But society has both a). People with purely bad intentions and B). People who may not have bad intentions but a poor ability to empathise, consider and discern facts, to reason well in general to minimise unwanted harm.

If everyone was an equally proficient philosopher that are well meaning, then society would not need a stringent hierarchy and control of others. This is about education and brethrenhood.

But for whatever reasons people do not think as much as one another. Some think more and are more wise.

So it seems not all efforts to control and manipulate others is inherently bad, they are only bad if the person doing so does not hold everyone else with the same high esteem as they do themselves. Elitism leads to problems, subservience of a greater good (if that greater good is measured, well balanced, and open to review and constructive criticism, if the greater good is accurately so) is not bad.

If I was asked if I would like to be controlled/manipulated by someone who really truly knew what was best for me and everyone else and could demonstrate it (lead by example) I would be happy to relinquish control to them. One less concern on my plate.

But their mastery of ethics and reason must stand to that. It is near impossible to prove. Which is why it is not the case.