>The fact that our current system is imperfect does not mean it isn't better than it was.
Sure, but that's my point. Pinker makes an argument for "it is better" without actually delving into confounding measures of "better".
>Inequality in access to the court system is better than a perpetual state of violence.
First: If you were systemically dispossessed, you might take chaos over certainty of a negative outcome.
But before we get there, why compare it to 'perpetual' violence? I don't see a basis for that in historical data or arising out of first principles.
Third, lack of access to conflict resolution was a micro example on the citizen to citizen level; it isn't the only potential cause for a reduction in violence. If we look at the citizen to state level, the increasing (accelerating, even!) capability, scope and organization of the state to stamp out dissent seems like a great confounder. Would we argue that a reduction in violence directly caused by the state's mounting ability to cause death or incarceration against dissenters is a good thing and that as violence decreases due to fear increasing that things are 'better'? The same argument applied to interstate conflict very quickly circles back to how catastrophic nuclear and conventional weaponry has become, which is what Taleb's argument is based upon.