There's a strong argument that the nature of "civil society" is how far removed from that threat of violence we live. That is, people obey "the law" because it's the right thing to do and they don't do that.
People don't steal, not because they worry about being arrested or imprisoned, but because stealing isn't right. Policing and Law Enforcement scales sublinearly with population size only if the population is by and large compliant, or rather, that the laws are compatible with the behavior and motivations of the majority of people.
So we keep that foundation far away -- instead of violence, it's the thought of the social opprobrium of the prospect of the threat of violence. But it has to be there, otherwise people who were willing to resort to violence would take everything.
> maybe we dont want a society that is based upon threats of violence.
I'm not convinced that such a thing is possible.
Fundamentally, for such a society there has to be some kind of rule that "threats of violence" and "violence itself" are not allowed. How is such a rule enforced? If your society is unwilling to be violent in any way, under any circumstances, but someone else is willing to be violent you're going to have a bad time.
People don't steal, not because they worry about being arrested or imprisoned, but because stealing isn't right. Policing and Law Enforcement scales sublinearly with population size only if the population is by and large compliant, or rather, that the laws are compatible with the behavior and motivations of the majority of people.
So we keep that foundation far away -- instead of violence, it's the thought of the social opprobrium of the prospect of the threat of violence. But it has to be there, otherwise people who were willing to resort to violence would take everything.