Struth, Jardine, do you STiLL not comprehend what I'm saying?

I consider assault to be in the general category of violence, though not an exact fit.

Nothing I have said contradicts this.

Governments do not use threats of violence to enforce policy. It is rare for governments to make any threats to enforce policy, and when they do it's usually the threat of a change in the law, or regulatory change, or a Royal Commission etc.

Enforcing the law sometimes involves threats of violence, but you should note that:
•Not all law enforcement involves any threats of violence.
•Every country would be far more violent without enforcement of laws.
•Law enforcement officers don't have carte blanche to use violence; it is only permitted in specific circumstances.

Therefore I reject your conclusion that government interventions are based on violence.

Aidan

You're STILL contradicting yourself at every turn. You're just going round and round in a loop of garbled double-talk.

First you say that you don't agree with aggressive violence. Then you admit that the law and policy are enforced by the initiation of force or threats. Then you say it's not "actual" violence. Then you admit that it *is* in the general category of violence. Then you say it could be categorised as not-violence. Then you come back saying that you've decided that it *is* in the general category of violence, but "not".

You say "Governments do not use threats of violence to enforce policy". But you've just admitted they do, you fool. Because assault is a threat of violence, and obeying the law is not optional, remember?

"Law enforcement officers don't have carte blanche to use violence; it is only permitted in specific circumstances."
a) you've already conceded that the threat of physical force is violence. Read back what you just wrote.
b) You're *assuming* that the subject obeys. What if they don't?

If you don't concede that assault is violence, you're contradicting yourself, and you're factually and legally wrong. And if you do, you've lost the argument.

Therefore *all* law enforcement involves the threat of violence, because if you don't obey their first threat, they'll escalate it, and you agree that
a) assault is "in the general category of violence"
b) disobedience is not a legal option, and
c) they have the "right" to escalate it?

REMEMBER? So you've lost the argument, you fool. You can PRETEND all you like that obeying the law is voluntary, but you know you're talking bullsh!t .

The problem isn't that I don't understand what you're saying, the problem is that *you* don't understand what you're saying, and you're just going round in a loop of endless self-contradiction.

What this means is that we have COMPLETELY DESTROYED your ethics, and your entire theory of political economy with it. You've got nothing but flim-flam.

You cannot justify any economic intervention on ethical grounds, and your economic theory is just as laughable self-contradictory.

Jardine,

You seem to be trying to argue that anyone who doesn't agree with aggressive violence is contradicting themselves if they don't support anarchy!

To me that position seems absolutely absurd.

My position is that the state should enforce the law, and shouldn't use violence (by which I mean action intended or likely to cause injury) except in self defence or the defence of others.

I am not assuming that the subject obeys. I don't think the police should use violence to stop a suspect who's running away (except for a small minority of violent offenders who pose a danger to the public just by being at large). However if the arrestee chooses to escalate the situation (which is NOT a right) then I've got no problem with the police threatening (and if necessary, using) violence in self defence.

In most cases the police can outrun fleeing suspects anyway (particularly when it's one suspect against many cops). Nobody can run for ever.

But I accept that, although the police don't have carte blanche to use violence, the existing regulations are not quite so strict.

Now do you understand what I'm saying?

I would also like a greater emphasis on preventing crime, including avoiding the situation where people gain the impression they've got no option but to resort to crime. And that (unlike your drivel about violence and the strawman that you have COMPLETELY DESTROYED), is strongly linked to the political economy.

BTW regarding that trivial argument about assault, I do still maintain that non violent assault is possible. For instance, someone could get a realistic looking toy gun and use it to threaten someone else: that's assault, but no actual violence is involved.