[bshepard]

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.

[SllX]

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.

[fallous]

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?

[fyi1183]

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".

[fallous]

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.

[bshepard]

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.

[fallous]

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.

[maccam94]

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.

[fallous]

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.

[mch82]

Do you use "force" to grow a garden?

Gardening is often proposed as an alternative metaphor to the more common metaphors of war and sports.

[maxerickson]

The defining characteristic of a lot of garden styles is meticulous curation; anything undesirable is torn from the ground and discarded.

[jononor]

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.