3 ms·

> You can persuade or pay people to things that you can't threaten or force them into. Any examples? Beyond immaterial things like respect/love/etc?

by exe34 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Sure. One example is when you have inferior force. You cant force someone to do something with threats, but you can pay them to do something. Another example is when the cost of violence is high. If have two people with guns, or MAD scenarios, violence isnt an effective way to get what you want, so payment can be better. The last example and simplest is if you need a service and the other party simply chooses destruction over acquiescence to violence. If a doctor would rather die than be forced to treat you, your violence is useless, and payment would be much better. I tried to give simple human level examples, but they can also be scaled up to groups and states.
- exe34 2y ago
  These are all interesting examples, but they support the point rather than deny it. If you have an inferior force, usually you get invaded (see Ukraine). Even paying can still be done to support your opposition until they control the government (see banana republics). Either way, you no longer hold the monopoly on violence, somebody else does. Guns and MAD are exactly the kind of violence society is founded upon. Ultimately you can't just stop paying tax or start driving illegal vehicles, because the state (usually) has a bigger gun than you. (In the case where it doesn't, you end up with something like Somalia or the mafia). MAD is the ultimate gun, not the absence of gun. A doctor might be willing to die, but every man has a price he is not willing to pay - whether that's his child or a random child you pick off the street and make violent threats towards. Payment is just a disguise and a convenience - the underlying order is still based on violence.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    We just have to agree to disagree then. I think a huge part of the structure is violence, but not all of it. The fact that violence exist and is important does not negate the rest. People with inferior violence and still have powers available. This is obvious because two people can still conduct business even if they have guns pointed at each other's head. Two people can conduct business if neither of them have guns and a third party is a gun at both of their heads. This means that there are powers beyond violence that can be used to influence others.

> You can persuade or pay people to things that you can't threaten or force them into. Any examples? Beyond immaterial things like respect/love/etc?

by exe34 2y ago

> You can persuade or pay people to things that you can't threaten or force them into. Any examples? Beyond immaterial things like respect/love/etc?

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Sure. One example is when you have inferior force. You cant force someone to do something with threats, but you can pay them to do something. Another example is when the cost of violence is high. If have two people with guns, or MAD scenarios, violence isnt an effective way to get what you want, so payment can be better. The last example and simplest is if you need a service and the other party simply chooses destruction over acquiescence to violence. If a doctor would rather die than be forced to treat you, your violence is useless, and payment would be much better. I tried to give simple human level examples, but they can also be scaled up to groups and states.

exe34 2y ago
These are all interesting examples, but they support the point rather than deny it. If you have an inferior force, usually you get invaded (see Ukraine). Even paying can still be done to support your opposition until they control the government (see banana republics). Either way, you no longer hold the monopoly on violence, somebody else does. Guns and MAD are exactly the kind of violence society is founded upon. Ultimately you can't just stop paying tax or start driving illegal vehicles, because the state (usually) has a bigger gun than you. (In the case where it doesn't, you end up with something like Somalia or the mafia). MAD is the ultimate gun, not the absence of gun. A doctor might be willing to die, but every man has a price he is not willing to pay - whether that's his child or a random child you pick off the street and make violent threats towards. Payment is just a disguise and a convenience - the underlying order is still based on violence.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  We just have to agree to disagree then. I think a huge part of the structure is violence, but not all of it. The fact that violence exist and is important does not negate the rest. People with inferior violence and still have powers available. This is obvious because two people can still conduct business even if they have guns pointed at each other's head. Two people can conduct business if neither of them have guns and a third party is a gun at both of their heads. This means that there are powers beyond violence that can be used to influence others.