[saraid216]

> Why is our collective violence de rigueur but individual violence is immediately presumed to be evil and wrong?

The difference is one of authority. Goldman's authority to kill isn't accepted by society at large, whereas the due process of election, appointment, induction, training, and periodic evaluation is so accepted. You can argue about whether or not that acceptance is a good thing or a bad thing, and Goldman likely felt it was a bad thing, but that acceptance is the fundamental difference.

The presumption that individual violence is wrong follows from this systemization of it. When it wasn't, we did commit individual violence with no reason. This is rapidly apparent in watching children interact without intervention: they exhibit the full range of human extremes in both cooperating spectacularly but also in conflicting violently. By systematizing it, we've made it rare and remarkable.

And because it stands out, it's now considered wrong.

[camdez]

Well put.

The consequences of that are where things get interesting:

When violence is systemized we consider it OK. When something stands out we consider it wrong. Authority is presumed to be benevolent (or, at least, extra-moral).

[saraid216]

> Authority is presumed to be benevolent (or, at least, extra-moral).

It's subtler than that, though with our current standard of civics education it's not apparent.

It's that we presume that we ourselves is correct, and since we ourselves are a source of authority, then the authority we contribute to must therefore be correct. Benevolence has nothing to do with it; it's just egocentrism. We don't think of ourselves as nice; we think of ourselves as right.