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

That index is nonsense.

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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!"

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

I've just argued that government is inherently a violent instrument, so there is no such thing as "great government" as far as I am concerned.

Protecting people against direct physical violence is a noble goal. If government was to limit itself to that task and that task alone I could consider it a grey area.

Anything else does not warrant violence.

Because I don't like being made complicit in rapacious institutions.

So? — Isaac

If people want to continue to construct and contribute to rapacious institutions then so be it. The extent of my action will be to avoid them, and protest if forcibly made complicit. — Tzeentch

People have their freedom restricted either way. — Isaac

The difference is that you and I wouldn't be complicit in it.

Even if we all agree anarchy was morally superior, how do we suppose the world remains in anarchy? — Marchesk

That's not my problem. If people want to continue to construct and contribute to rapacious institutions then so be it. The extent of my action will be to avoid them, and protest if forcibly made complicit.

It's not ideal that such violence-supported impositions are needed, but its being non-ideal is irrelevant unless there's a better alternative. — Isaac

The goal of violence is to control people against their will. What you're asking me is whether I can give you a better tool than violence to control people against their will.

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

Therefore, I assume you will fly the anarchist banner. — Bitter Crank

To be clear, I don't fly any banners nor am I campaigning for the abolition of states.

I'm just discussing an idea.

Now, you also express antipathy to this idea of the "social contract". A lot of people dislike the term. Fine -- one can get alone without using that term. — Bitter Crank

Obviously I have no problem with people consensually interacting and voluntarily committing to mutual obligations, preferably also without violence playing a role.

And that's exactly the problem I have with states and how it relates to anarchy: the role of violence and the lack of consensuality.

There are states which fail to meet my expectations: quite a few states, really. Burma, Afghanistan, Russia, China, North Korea, Mexico, El Salvador, Ethiopia, and Somalia, for example. Not a complete list at all. At any given time in history, most states have managed to meet your expectations of violence and exploitation including the United States and the various nations in the European community. — Bitter Crank

This is exactly the problem I have with the idea of the social contract.

A contract suggests that when either side breaches the terms, some form of termination can take place.

In practice, the citizen has no such option. If the state breaches the contract, they can flee, or through some large, arduous political or bureaucratic process try to change things, if that is even possible at all.

In pratice, there is no social contract by which the state is bound.


Furthermore, states can move into extreme directions at the drop of a hat. During the Vietnam War the United States government forced its citizens to participate in conducting a de facto genocide against the inhabitants of a third-world country. (And it has repeated similar things since then)

Was this a breach of the social contract? If so, where could US citizens have gone with their grievances?

Short answer: nowhere. They could comply or be met with the state's violence. Even if they weren't shipped off to Vietnam, they were forcibly made complicit in the ordeal through methods like taxation.


The social contract is nothing but a fancy term to describe the same ties that bound serfs to their feudal landowners in the Middle Ages (you give me grain, I give you safety, or else), and it is every bit as one-sided.

It's a pacifier, but that only becomes apparent once one finds themselves on the receiving end of the state's injustice.

The root of the problem is not in the existence of states per se. It is in the perverse behavior of those who wield power. — Bitter Crank

States function through laws. Laws function through the threat and application of violence.

The state itself is a perverse instrument, so is it any wonder that perverse individuals are drawn to wielding its power?


The fact that you call the people in power and their behavior perverse suggests you see the same problem I do, but if you wish to change a system you cannot do so while abiding by the very same paradigm of violence.

Your vision of family (at least as you have projected it here) expects violence and ruthless exploitation. It isn't that ruthlessly exploitative families never have existed. — Bitter Crank

I invited you to envision a family. It should be obvious that I do not believe all families are exploitative. However, if a family were to operate in the way a state operates, we would unmistakenly recognize them as exploitative, and that's the double standard I am trying to lay bare.

What I am asking you is, what makes the actions of a state acceptable, when they're so obviously not in other situations?

Families are generally nurturing and loving. — Bitter Crank

Yes they are, and states are not.

This further begs the question.

The social contract (which is, granted, not a signed document. and nobody thinks it is) yields mutual support and benefit. That's how a functioning society works.

The social contract of mutually beneficial behavior would exist in an anarchist society as much as, maybe more than, it does in a hierarchical society. Our human ability to mirror other people's needs, desires, pains, etc. long preceded civil society. — Bitter Crank

This did not answer my question - what if the individual is not benefited but instead exploited or abused by the "social contract"?

Should they still abide by it? If they wish not to, is the state correct to say "If you don't like it here, you can just flee the country"?

No. Without a functioning social contract, you have chaos, and all you can do is try to stay alive. — Bitter Crank

How do we determine whether a social contract functions?

How many people may feel like they are being exploited / abused before the contract is considered defunct?

Societies have an implied social contracts which bind citizens to treating each other more or less civilly (and most of the time, the contract is honored). There are mutual obligations which are understood. The law, however, is not an IMPLIED social contract -- it is explicit. We understand that if we violate the law, there may well be quite unpleasant consequences. Prison is one of the possible consequences. — Bitter Crank

The problem with social contracts is that I was never asked to sign one. The dependency is first created without ever offering an opt-out, and then the demands are stacked high.

Again, I invite you to envision a family, this time one in which a depedency is created and then ruthlessly exploited. The excuse the parents give is "If my child doesn't like it here, they can just leave." - completely foregoing the fact that they worked to create that dependency in the first place, and then justifying their use of violence against their child on that basis!

I have great problems accepting that line of reasoning, and it still strikes me as obviously abusive. I have yet to be told why societies function differently in such a way that this would be justified.

Besides, what if the social contract is obviously defunct? Do I still have to abide by its rules?

Is a religious fundamentalist country justified in stoning to death women for adultery because, after all, that was the social contract she supposedly signed and if they didn't like it they were free to flee the country?

The main reason we seem to justify the "social contract" in western countries is because we like its terms, but this is the same as the religious fundamentalist defending their social contract because they like religious fundamentalism being the basis of their society.

Imprisonment is coercive, certainly, but coercion is not the same as violence (beatings, torture, execution etc.). — Bitter Crank

Force and coercive measures are not inherently violent. — Bitter Crank

The two are linked. How do you get someone into prison that does not wish to go there? With violence, or with threats of violence. Those two are in my eyes of the same moral quality.

Nothing in our justice system makes sense without violence to back it up - the threat of violence is always there. If it wasn't, it wouldn't work. That's why the moment the justice system's capability to intervene is in question things like rioting, looting and anarchy start taking over in a heartbeat.
That's why I consider the entire system to be predicated on violence.

Prison I find to be comparable to torture, even if it would be a "mild" form of torture, if such a thing exists at all.

Violence or nothing is a false binary. Societies use coercion (fines, for instance) to enforce rules. Leave your car on the street after a snow storm, and it might get towed away--a coercive measure people find quite aversive. Coercion yes, but the streets cannot be cleared of snow if people don't move their cars out of the way. — Bitter Crank

We go back to the head figure of the family, who now states "my household cannot function properly without violence and threats of violence" - would you consider this acceptable? I wouldn't.

I don't see why it would be acceptable in one instance, but not in the other. It seems like a double standard to me.

I'd call that domestic abuse, and awful parenting.

Governments have violence as the last resort, but have several options before the beating and shooting begin. — Bitter Crank

What would you call a household where everybody does what the head figure wants out of fear of getting beaten?

And what would your reaction be if the head figure excused themselves by saying the beatings are only a last resort for when the fear of being beaten isn't sufficient to force obedience?

To understand the anarchist's basic problem one must understand that government has only one tool in its toolkit and that is violence.

Why should A get to threaten B with violence to do X?

I wasn't aware that the missile actually killed two people.

It seems unlikely that a stray modern air defense missile hits something it wasn't supposed to and also kills two people, across the border of a neutral country no less. Unlikely in terms of statistical probability, but also due to the fact that the S-300 system makes missiles self-destruct when they miss their targets.

It's not impossible, but also not a conclusion I would accept without serious evidence.

You've got Zelensky negotiating from a position of power. — frank

What do you mean?

That Zelensky is making demands to start negotiations?

I don't see why that would be anything strange. As many as theorized, there's a good possibility Russia has reached its strategic goals (land access to Crimea) and if that is the case, they are likely looking to end the conflict sooner rather than later. Giving up Kherson may very well be the price.

It's just far fetched that the Russians would divest themselves of their assets prior to official negotiations. — frank

Perhaps giving up Kherson, the potential springboard for future offensive operations towards Odessa, was a prerequisite to starting those negotiations.

I don't know. — frank

Well, then we have ourselves a mystery, and all I'm doing is trying to make sense of it, while accounting for those things that seem to make little sense.

I have nothing to correct, and your representation of my view is fair.

They didn't. They were forced to give it up. — frank

Yes, yes. The logistical situation and all that - the common military response would be to reduce the amount of troops occupying Kherson to a managable level without announcement, leaving only tripwire forces and artillery scouts, etc. to make the enemy guess and pay with indirect fires should they advance - urban areas are perfect for that.

Giving up ground for free with loud announcement is not a typical military action, regardless of what position these troops found themselves in, which is why it is likely the town was abandoned under loud announcement for other reasons - a deal potentially, which is given some credit due to Zelensky talking about "the end of the war" shortly after the retreat from Kherson, even though there's no reason to assume that the retreat from Kherson in any way signaled a retreat from the occupied territories.

I hope you'll agree that a complete collapse of the Russian lines is not in the cards any time soon, so why would he be saying this, if there wasn't some deal made?

That is not what Tzeentch is saying though. — Olivier5

Indulge us - what do you think I'm saying? :lol:

He cannot imagine (or admit) that the Russians are forced to leave Kherson — Olivier5

I cannot imagine that Russia would give up Kherson freely, and loudly announce it, since it goes against any principle of two nations being at war.

You have a tendency in misinterpret my posts, and falsely give them a "pro-Russian" twist, so you can then discredit them on the basis of being "pro-Russian" - everything to avoid having to deal with the logic of the argument.

I'm not here to prove anything to you. Take a hike.

However unjust it might be, Russia is going to get what it wants, and the only variable is how much of Ukraine will be destroyed in the process. — Tzeentch

"Careful reading of the passage is essential for proper understanding and answering correctly."

Just calling out your bullshit for what it is. :kiss:

Your accusations of partisanship at my address have spanned the entirety of this 400-page long thread, so I'm not sure what you were expecting.

If you're going to be man enough to dish it out, be prepared to receive.

Nice self-criticism. — Olivier5

I've never been hostile to anyone in this thread, but keep trying.

And yes, yours is exactly the behavior I am talking about.

There are those who are obviously emotionally invested in the idea of a powerful Russia, as a force of nature. — frank

You're just proving my point here, buddy. :clap:

The issue in this thread is indicative of the times we live in.

Adhering to the "right" ideology, cheerleading for the "right" side, parroting the "right" narrative is all more important than acknowledging realities, even when the cost is prolonged war, human lives, etc.

That's why the more moderate voices in this thread are instantly met with hostility and branded as partisan, Russia sympathizers, etc. - because we do not adhere to the "right" narrative, and refuse to parrot its mantras.

The slightest hint of non-adherence is enough to invite hostility, because the cheerleaders realise how flimsy their views really are, and that they do not weather criticism very well.

Let us reconvene in a month, and see how that particular prediction panned out. — Olivier5

Dejavu...

Do you remember:

The Russian lines haven't collapsed, Putin hasn't been overthrown. The Russian economy hasn't collapsed, etc. etc.

All the propaganda nonsense that has been repeated ad nauseum and never happened.

Your accusations of partisanship at my address is projection of the highest degree. You're parroting western propaganda, and wish to frame every happening as a defeat for Russia. That's why you're so defensive when someone voices a different opinion.

Sorry to give you a dose of reality every once in a while. Cozy delusions don't serve anyone.