> If killing people is wrong, it's still wrong even when you're the one doing it. Okay. But you still haven't solved the practical problem of people being able

> If killing people is wrong, it's still wrong even when you're the one doing it. Okay. But you still haven't solved the practical problem of people being able to violently coerce others. Like, suppose there is an armed group Z of people who wants to control a patch of territory A and force those currently living there to perform agricultural labor and sexual favors for them. How do you prevent them from doing so? How do you prevent the residents of territory A from saying "oh hey, how about we NOT" and forming a military to kill the approaching members of armed group Z? This possibility is what smallnamespace meant by "trivially unstable equilibrium". It is unstable because when you do...whatever it is that you would do to set the world to this state... it wouldn't stay that way. This problem is known as the Security Dilemma.