• @Gabu
    link
    4
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    the possibility it has for threatening traditional power structures.

    You mean the possibility of completely collapsing civilization as a whole.

    We have a state now though, has thievery and violence been stopped?

    Fallacious reasoning, and pretty obvious at that. I give you a cup of water - some water has been poisoned by heavy metals. If you drink the cup of water, will you get metal poisoning? The only intellectually honest answer is: the question is flawed. The same way it doesn’t follow that
    Some water is poisoned ⇏ All water is poisoned
    It also doesn’t follow that
    The suppression of violence begets control ⇏ All control suppresses violence.

    This is further proven by your following statement

    What is the difference between the conditions where it is common and uncommon?

    Which opposes your own argumentation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      You said a state must have control to stop thievery and murder, but I’ve never heard of a state that successfully stopped those things, is what I was getting at. The point about conditions where violence is common or less common is that there are more primary factors to violence than whether or not someone will be punished by state forces for that violence. There are more effective ways to combat violence and theft than a police state.

      • @Gabu
        link
        21 year ago

        Sure – state healthcare, state infrastructure, state base income all help.