> A government is a legitimate monopoly of violence and I'm all for it. It is based in violent use of force. I'm glad to hear that this suits you, I hope your

> A government is a legitimate monopoly of violence and I'm all for it. It is based in violent use of force. I'm glad to hear that this suits you, I hope your opinions and convictions remain in line with the government's. > Because I know that the alternatives are much worse (warlords and such) Hmm. This is not something you know; it might be something you believe. Unless you have personal experience of warlords. When you say 'government' I think you are talking about the overt state apparatus - eg politicians, government buildings, courts, police, etc. But I think of a 'governance system', which includes schooling and media and both political parties. We are presented with an illusion of debate, reasoning, etc whilst being guided towards preordained goals. > At the end of the day, I cannot verify everything, everywhere, all the time. That's why smart people use the same "web of trust" principle that computer security does, where you trust people close to you and then other less and less. Yes, you cannot verify everything. But do you actually verify anything? Eg, what climate change bits have you personally verified? I have tried btw, but the beaches I knew decades ago are still at the same height, plastic bags do not last for 100s of years - ie my personal verification leads me to the opposite conclusions of those that are commonly made. > And I'm mature enough to understand we can't persuade 100% of the people, especially in the age of internet and nutjobs being able to congregate and convince themselves that up is down and the sky is red and gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat and... You say we... Which group is this that you speak for? Which group has the real handle on truth that it can force everyone else to abide by it? Does truth really need to be forced on others - I would have hoped it it was true, it would demonstrable. If it is not demonstrable, perhaps it is not truth, despite all the books, shows on TV, etc. > So I'm fine with dragging some people along for the ride against their will. Societal progress always works this way, especially since some of those opposed are malicious actors. So say, lots of group who are convinced of their position, environmental folk, religious, political, etc. They can't all be right though? It is it that the mightiest are the rightest? For me, all that ideology is a recipe for confrontation. We all have to live here .. can we not do so with conversation, cooperating on those things we care about, and yet not forcing others to go against their conscience? I try not to force others, it seems a viable way to go. And it's not like I know the truth and have never been wrong. I would hate to force something on another, only to realise my force was in error later on, even if I was well meaning at the time. There's really no need to force others to act as you think is right, even if you have read a lot of books. > Then nothing will get done. It's really pretty good already. I don't need to force my "improvements" on the world.