Would you call policing a 'war on crime'? The enforcement of contracts a 'war on fraud'? The collection of taxes a 'war on free-riding'?
The deficiency of 'war' as the correct metaphor here is that war implies much more than simply 'force'; war has a particularly structure, in part:
1. It is a conflict between distinct groups
2. It is the exception and can be distinguished against 'peace'
3. Victory, or defeat, is possible (in ancient times, where warfare was common and vicious, the literal elimination of entire polities was very common)
None of these things are true of the 'war on poverty' or 'war on cancer', for example.
Unfortunately we do hear the phrase "war on crime (usually meaning violence or drugs)," but policing is the enforcement of all laws and thus lacks the targeting required to be a "war" in a meaningful sense. The same with contracts and taxes, although both have suffered their own specific "war" monikers on particular behaviors in the past.
A war does indeed have a structure, but I'd disagree with your list a bit. Your point 1 is correct, but "groups" is a fungible category and we've certainly seen wars that included the attempted destruction of both groups of people and concepts (history, religion, ideology, etc). 2. Unfortunately history argues that peace is the exception rather than war. There are plenty of wars occurring right now in which we have no participation, nevermind those that we do. 3. Plenty of wars ended with no victory or defeat, and it's certainly arguable that in some cases neither was realistically possible.
I specifically left out the War on Cancer because a good portion of it was under the aegis of private parties, not that it much mattered when it came to the failure of results. They originators believed that Cancer was a single entity that one muster all efforts against... they were wrong.
That the wars waged were wrong-headed in both conception and means is pretty obvious, the means simply ensured that the consequences would be much closer to actual war.
Whether or not things eventually rely on force seems like more of a metaphysical question than a political one; the resources spent on the perpetuation of the military-industrial complex could have been (could still be) diverted towards raising the living standards of the poorest, ensuring a basic security net for all, providing decommodified healthcare and education. It is interesting to think about why this choice wasn't made, why it doesn't get made.
Never-mind the military-industrial complex. A nation-state is in itself a monopoly on sanctioned-violence expressed through your local police department or standing Army. Property rights, human rights, taxes, and everything funded by government revenue is only possible because of the guys with the guns projecting government Force.
This isn't a metaphysical question, this is literally how modern governments are able to exist and operate at scale and how your dollar bills or local equivalent have any value at all.
It isn't metaphysical, it is purely a practical observation. How do you propose to "raising living standards" and all the other offerings using government but not using force?
The relationship between government activities and government use or threat of force is highly nonlinear.
The biggest chunk of government use or threat of violence is in property rights enforcement. Anything on top of that is mostly peanuts.
For example, if a local government raises property taxes by 5 percentage points in order to get the funds for better schools, there's likely no additional use of force at all. So it's absolutely possible to raise living standards without use of force for all practical purpose.
A reasonable libertarian who worries about use of force (but I'm aware that such people are so rare they may as well not exist) should be in favour of such a policy, because it increases the ratio of "quality of life per use of force".
A reasonable person, regardless of political affiliation, understands the consequences of the policies they support. If you believe that raising property taxes has no use of force you should attend a sheriff's sale of property seized due to lack of property tax payments.
It is not the linearity of the USE of force but the threat that matters. I support any number of government actions knowing full well that those actions very well can result in the use of force. I understand and accept those consequences as part of my moral duties rather than try and hide from them.
By transferring government resources from the perpetuation of force (military industrial complex/prison archipelago) towards the social expenses mentioned above. This would involve a diminution of force, and an increase in cooperative social relations.
Let's be clear, we're not disagreeing on policies we're disagreeing on what the behavior of government is in enacting policies. Government does not have resources it did not acquire through laws... which are by necessity enforced. Say "no" to the IRS and see how things work out.
A diminution of force is not the absence of force and you simply can't have a government act without the consequence of enforcing its actions. This isn't "cooperative" since that requires voluntary consent of all parties. I may support any number of government actions but I do not hide behind euphemisms to convince myself that those actions carry with them the very real potential and actual consequence of force.
I think you're not catching what fallous is saying, because s/he's using libertarian vernacular. Libertarians view taxation as force, because if you don't pay the tax the police can forcefully take your property/valuables. IMO this view is shortsighted and doesn't properly assess the advantages to generally granting the government a monopoly on the use of force.
You're mistaking my pointing out the means as a critique of the ends. If you do not pay your taxes not only can the police take your property but they can and will imprison your person. That is the reality of the situation and I support the collection of taxes (and the enforcement required) with the full understanding of what my support entails. I don't try and drape fig leaves around it.
Only in combination with setting up and maintaining an environment designed for the plants that are desirable. Lots of supporting action, not just weeding out the bad parts.
Hobbes recognized that the social contract is enforced by the sovereign, otherwise we have anarchy. That good is derived from such a contract does not mean that it is absent force... it's necessary. It is absurdity is to try and hide from that fact just because we like the initiative or results.