back
1 comments
Violence is the force behind all government regulation. If you do not choose to comply, law enforcement will make you do so at gunpoint. In every society, no matter how progressive, the specter of violence is inescapable since there is no other real way to coerce human behavior.

You can debate the pros and cons of centralization vs decentralization of violent power, but it's misleading to claim that one argument is inherently violent and the other somehow is not.

For example, you could argue that the deterrent effect of a strong police force enforcing strict laws leads to less actual physical violence and crime than the deterrent effect of every home being vigilant and armed. But regardless of what side you take, both approaches are backed by the prospect of violence.

There are lots of other ways to coerce human behavior besides violence.

Violence only usually works for a short time, in limited situations, with limited groups of people. Other than that it's largely counterproductive because dead babies photos get folks agitated.

What works really well is economic coercion. Sure, you don't have to do such and such, but then your kids won't go to college, you won't get a good job, you won't be able to buy anything, and in extreme cases, you won't be able to eat.

That is effective coercion, the kind all of us are subject to right now and generally responsive to as well. The issue with breaking the law isn't that you might get shot by the cops, it's that you won't be able to get a good (or any?) job ever ever again after you get out of 10 year confinement. So no women, no wine, no everyone thinking you are really something in your new car. No power. Will get bossed around in some low level degrading position for table scraps, if you are lucky.

It's really the same kind of thing as social credit score in China, just not as formal. And that kind of coercion is how smart people do it, not with guns.