ahh shit here comes deconstructionism. Nothing is anything so anything can be anything. XD

Very true, but then you get in to the question of what defines a state/ideas of sovereignty or condoned social control. we had state condoned violence before the westpphalian treaty

@AiarUther that was to answer you

Well give me a definition that is consistent

give me a definition that I can apply to any organisation equally

What is gang violence?

Most of this made sense when there was still 'wilderness' to escape to

there is no real difference I agree.

good

so the government is a violent gang?

It makes sense to have structure when people live in dense populations. Now what that structure would be would be up for debate.

It's a gang that we are okay with using violence on our behalf

yep, but hopefully they are my violent gang, and better than the violent gang the other crowd have.!]

I wasn't questioning that

Well it's the answer

I just like a bit of ideological honesty

I've been reading your chat, and I don't see the point you're really trying to make

A government can be ethical in the simplest way if you start by establishing stuff like 1)don't rob people, 2) don't kill people for no reason. **shrug**

They always get larger from there

And usually less ethical.

Just like even if you had an anarchist paradise it would be temporary because of a lack of organization.

It would create a void and at some point that would be filled.

And that's why you arm the populace

Even if they are armed doesn't mean some of them won't join forces into gangs to impose their will.

I meant for the governed society

But the state can't exist without being violent

This is fucking fun. I'm enjoying the half ass packing my stuff I'm doing while interacting in text and voice.

❤

and therefore unethical

I agree with your point @AiarUther

But the real question is this; can violence ever BE ethical?

no

Are you allowed to defend yourself?

No?

That seems unethical.

I don't see defending yourself as "violence"

that's self defence

that goes back to the question of whether humans are inherently violent... i would guess we are

Then the state isn't violence

That is a different definition if violence is involved though.

But the state has to use aggessive violence to exist