> To blow 'use of lethal force' into the be-all and end-all of the purpose of government is over the top rhetoric. If your counterexample is what tribesmen in

> To blow 'use of lethal force' into the be-all and end-all of the purpose of government is over the top rhetoric. If your counterexample is what tribesmen in the jungle allegedly do, I think that's evidence that I've hit upon a fairly universal quality :) I'm not sure how you perceive my use of the point as a rhetorical ploy. I introduced the idea into the discussion to emphasize a key similarity between ISIS and other governments... Except in anarchy (or perhaps in jungle tribes) someone will control lethal force. In a majoritarian democracy the majority does, sometimes tyrannically. In a fledgling grassroots Islamist movement, the same requirement exists, but it's handled differently... so differently that my analogy seems inappropriate to some. Political groups are aggregators of power. Those who want power gravitate toward them. I de-emphasize whether the sort of power desired is financial, coercive (force oriented), sexual, or ideological... all scratch the same primitive itch. So it follows that ISIS will seek all of these kinds of power in order to become a respected and dominant institution in the region.