It would happen regardless though; it's not like you could choose not to do that
Lolwut? We absolutely could.
Nature abhors a vacuum and that's what anarchy is.
That's still not responsive to what I'm saying. War and conquest itself does not magically install new systems of government in their wake. I don't shoot Kim Jong Un and he magically changes from a dictator to a democratically elected leader. He becomes dead.
And who decides what the system of government is?
If true then why would we implement systems of government that give us less direct control and are less inherently violent? Why, if true, didn't we tell Japan at the end of WW2 "Hey, here's your new viceroy, he answers to the President. He'll be deciding your laws from here on out."? Same question with Iraq. Direct control would "suit our interests" much easier if the conquerer is deciding what government to impose via conquest.
This is like saying that slavery isn't ultimately based on violence
Yes, me paying my traffic ticket is definitely like slavery. Right. Of course.
It pretends that violence can't be woven into a system.
One strand does not make an entire fabric. Even with violence present in some aspects of our government it doesn't make everything our government does violent. And it doesn't explain how violence present within the system has been historically decreasing over the decades and centuries (and even further, compare the USFG to whatever government you'd like in the 11th century, or even further back).
Who decides if it is mutually beneficial? And do people get to opt out if they disagree?
The people living in the state in cooperation with the state? Elections and referendums exist for a reason.
And yes, ways to opt out exist. I didn't like the direction Texas was heading politically, so now I live in California. People immigrate, both legally and illegally, to other nations to opt out of the government they currently reside in. Hell, if Brexit isn't one giant 'opt out' button of the EU, I don't know what is (and the EU accepted their decision without violence or a war).
Is there a way to opt out of every theoretical situation? No. Are there more ways to opt out of situations now than have existed historically? Yes.
slaves obviously disagreed for the most part, and if they could opt out slavery would quickly collapse.
Some slaves did opt out and escaped to the Union.
Government simply does not operate on a consent framework
Wild to claim this when legal avenues of migration both to and away from nations exist. Hell, the entire theory of the social contract is of people consenting to give up some rights for protection from the state of nature by the government.
Of course it isn't absolute, but it doesn't have to be - if people can opt out the system will destabilize because of things like the free rider problem and the resentment which it causes. It also would accelerate any downward turn into a death spiral because that would cause mass defection.
1. Again, wild to claim when ways to opt out of modern day governments exist.
2. Huh, so you're saying that if people defected en mass that states would lose power? That almost sounds like a reason for states to want to cooperate with the people. Wild.
You act as if this stabilization effect (which does exist) can go on forever.
No, history is very clearly an oscillation between states of war and peace, but extend the line from the start of recorded history to present day and you'll see the trend of states and cultures becoming less inherently violent become more true the closer you get to modern day.
There are more slaves alive today than there were back when it was the 'norm'.
There's also more people in general alive today than there were back when it was legal.
They largely exist in societies which are still developing, or which don't care about optics
1. Huh, so there are some systems of government then that are less violent than other systems of government? And we would say that these systems of government are 'less developed' than others? Interesting. I wonder what that implies about governments and societies that are more developed or continue to develop...
2. I've never made the claim that modern day Western societies are perfect. There's obviously areas of life or sections of the population that still have things really unfairly hard, I'm not blind to that. But the overall trend for societies historically has been up, and a lot of systems of inequality that you're pointing out are less prevalent now than they have been historically. I see no reason why, over the course of the next few centuries, that trend would not continue. For someone who's claiming I'm only looking at the 'nice' aspects of society, you seem awfully focused on only looking at the bad.
We fought a war over the legality of slavery. No wars were fought over gay marriage. That's progress.
I think you must live in a very specific middle class white bubble
I live in downtown San Francisco just barely above the federal poverty line. I have three roommates, one of whom is Korean and another who is from the Middle East. Again, things are far from perfect now, but I'd infinitely prefer to be born now than a few centuries ago, even more so a millenia ago.
I think here you are conflating becoming more liberal/'progressive' with peace.
I mean, compare the population you're describing me as with populations that existed decades ago. Now go back centuries. Now go back a millenia.
a literal genocide playing out in 4K in Gaza in which women and children were routinely butchered in their thousands
Oh yeah, you know the whole "Free Palestine" movement? The public outcry to stop funding Israeli-sponsored violence in the Gaza Strip and reduce our military funding to Israel? That's the thing you're talking about, right?
