3 ms·
Holding the threat of death over people isn't the way to a "high-trust society." Maybe you think it's the way to something similar, but you have to give up the
by rossy 1mo ago
Holding the threat of death over people isn't the way to a "high-trust society." Maybe you think it's the way to something similar, but you have to give up the word "trust" because it doesn't apply here. If the only reason I think a man isn't going to rob me is because I will shoot him if he does, I don't trust that man.
A society which only has low crime because everyone is able to use lethal force to defend themselves and their property isn't one I would call higher "trust" than one that maintains the same crime levels without that threat.
- s1artibartfast 1mo agoI think that is the wrong way to think about it. The end state is you can trust others because nobody even wants to or considers it. Punishing violators is being proposed as how to build the norm that no one wants to steal.
- mlrtime 1mo agoCorrect, the "No object is worth someone's life" is easy to say. However if you want a high trust society, it needs property rights. That only comes through enforcement of some sort.
- ipsod 1mo agoHigh trust doesn't mean you can trust that the people are angels. It means you can trust that they will behave as such. The threat of force is only there for those who otherwise wouldn't. So, either citizens bear force, or they plead with the government to wield their force. But, force is there, either way, keeping people in line. It has never been any other way.