Jardine,
"Whether you regard assault as non-violent is irrelevant. The fact is, the government does."
That makes no sense. AIUI assault is the threat of violence. Neither I nor the government regard it as non-violent even when no actual violence is involved.

"Wrong."
Which part? That the ECP doesn't relate to replacing markets with central planning? Or that nobody's proposing to do so?

"Wrong."
What evidence do you have that markets don't solve the ECP?

You seem to be basing your claims on nothing more than Salerno's opinion; a highly illogical opinion because it fails to take into account the inherent biases the market has towards the short term and towards the interests of those who are already wealthy. There are also sometimes social, environmental and macroeconomic externalities.

Regarding your offer to disprove my economic theory, the accusations you've previously made demonstrate that you don't even understand what my position is. "Proof" based on false assumptions is worthless; it proves nothing.

And I'm not begging the question; it's just that I've barely started to explain it because it's so hard to get you to comprehend what my position is, as you seem to be more keen on making false assumptions than to discuss it honestly.

Until you understand my position, you have no credibility demanding unilateral conditions for continuing. But for the record:
1) If government complied with my limits on power, it would not commit any acts of violence except in self defence or the defence of others, so your conclusion's false. You appear to be shifting the goalposts by trying to include violence against property, though it's not clear exactly what you mean.

2) I accept you have sufficient cognitive dissonance tobelieve the word of one particularly stupid economist that the ECP can be extrapolated to the extent of all government intervention.

"does the enforcement of law and policy involve the initiation of force and threats which the government defines as violence; or not?"
Typically but not necessarily.

However: the vast majority of government action isn't based on violence,.
The government prevents more violence than it initiates.

""Whether you regard assault as non-violent is irrelevant. The fact is, the government does."
That makes no sense. AIUI assault is the threat of violence. Neither I nor the government regard it as non-violent even when no actual violence is involved."

My bad, sorry.

What I meant was, whether you regard assault as non-violent is irrelevant. The fact is, the government considers it be violence.

Now may I repeat my question: does the enforcement of law and policy involve the initiation of force and threats which the government defines as violence (except when the government does them to enforce law and policy)?

Yes?

Or no?

Jardine,
The government classify assault as violent. So do I.
But that doesn't mean it necessarily involves any actual violence.

Now regarding your repeated question:
The enforcement of policy generally doesn't require the initiation of force nor threats of force.

The enforcement of law can require the initiation of force or threats of force. It's not an intrinsic requirement (except in defensive situations) and there are legal restrictions on the amount of force that can be used (though as I've said, I'd like them to be stricter).

Use of force is common in response to violent crimes, but far less likely in response to non violent crimes.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu,
I'd heard of a similar method being used to kill insects, but I hadn't heard of it being used against humans before.

I certainly wouldn't classify it as non violent.
The actions dubiously labelled voluntary I would classify as non violent. But the execution method is clearly intended to cause (fatal) injury and is therefore unambiguously violent.

Dear Aidan,

Good, so you are able to recognise that a complex violent operation can be classified as such by the whole, rather than by the chronologically very last bit of action (or inaction) that could on its own be classified as non-violent.

So if a group of people who call themselves "state", represented by their government and police, want to make you follow a certain law of theirs and as you refuse to follow it, they come to arrest you, they knock on your door and as you do not open, they break your door and break into your home trying to take you to jail and as you resist in self-defence, they use force against your body so they can physically grab your body and throw it in jail. That last bit they technically justify as self-defence, but in fact their whole act, starting from when they demanded that you follow their laws, is violent!

When certain people enforce their policies on other people, that's already an initiation of force, regardless how they technically achieve their plot.

Aidan
Thank you for that.

"The government classify assault as violent. So do I.
But that doesn't mean it necessarily involves any actual violence."

So where does that leave assault? Violence? Or not violence?

Aidan

So what's the answer to the question?

Is assault violence or not violence?