Violence

The Book * Chapter 2 * Page 4

It’s almost arithmetical: 

No state, No rulesNo rules equals freedom .

More hoaxish is the counter-argument :

It would immediately rule the law of the jungle.

So the human being is seen as being in need of civilization,

in order to keep him away from wildly killing others?

Does civilization change something on the death rate of beings?

Modifies the civilization something in the fact that people murder ?

No

To say, the human needs of civilization, one must first mean to know what the human is capable of.

You have to believe that he (The Human) is basically violent.

Only then you can say, humans needs a civilization.

But a state does not prevent carnage , he is its author.

Why is violence so bad anyways?

Cops violence as example is necessary in a state in order to keep civilization’s rules respected and working .

Why do civilizations-fans argue that violence would erupt without this civilization ?

They need precisely the violence, in order to keep the system going, which is supposed to prevent violence.

It’s called „Violence Monopoly“ (By the police, for example).

So, prevent violence with more violence is better then a free and good human being?

Why do we believe humans are bad from begin?

Who teaches us that we are naturally violent?