[ajkjk]

"most effective" requires a lot of justification. I think it's empirically false, personally. A system that uses violence to establish norms is fundamentally unstable because it lets whoever can muster the most violence set the rules---meaning people have an incentive to change the system for their benefit and everyone's incentivizes are pointing in different directions. Whereas a system whose behaviors are enforced by overall prosociality will find equilibria that are also generally prosocial and therefore will be defended by everyone, so their incentives point in the same direction, making it more stable.

[nh23423fefe]

you haven't made an argument for why stable rules are good nor have you justified the assertion that prosocial enforcement even exists

[ajkjk]

Nor do I feel the need to, since my goal was only to present the obvious refutation to the (basically fascist) argument I was replying to.

Anyway both are self-evident: prosocial enforcement exists because we see it around us every day and stable prosocial systems are good because people pick them, given the choice.

[nh23423fefe]

win argument button pressed lol, especially strong when mixed with shifting goal posts

[ajkjk]

You're thinking of comment threads as some kind of high school debate contest? for some reason?

[nh23423fefe]

it seems to me like you have no aim at all.

[ajkjk]

My aim was to communicate the thing that I wrote. Broadly, to supply the obvious refutation to the thing I replied to for any passing readers.