Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > So you're saying, "All regulation is insitutionalized violence." Okay... > Yeah, essentially. Amazing! You're literally arguing that 18 U.S. Code § 1111[1] is institutionalized violence. > Are you going to engage with the point, or are you just going to make fun and appeal to emotion and it's obvious rediculousness? My general approach to debate is that the person I'm debating with is not going to be persuaded no…
But it's not irrelevant, and I explain that in my response to the other reply to this. I also explained in that comment what I think of your link and all that, if you want to read it. But sure. I went into this knowing you probably weren't going to be convinced either, but I at least wanted to lay out my thoughts clearly and accurately for you and others to see. I sort of expected a mutual respect from you, but it's…
It's irrelevant, because it's a noncentral fallacy[1]. To quote Scott Alexander:
> Suppose someone wants to build a statue honoring Martin Luther King Jr. for his nonviolent resistance to racism. An opponent of the statue objects: "But Martin Luther King was a criminal!"
> Any historian can confirm this is correct. A criminal is technically someone who breaks the law, and King knowingly broke a law against peaceful anti-segregation protest - hence his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail.
> But in this case calling Martin Luther King a criminal is the noncentral. The archetypal criminal is a mugger or bank robber. He is driven only by greed, preys on the innocent, and weakens the fabric of society. Since we don't like these things, calling someone a "criminal" naturally lowers our opinion of them.
> The opponent is saying "Because you don't like criminals, and Martin Luther King is a criminal, you should stop liking Martin Luther King." But King doesn't share the important criminal features of being driven by greed, preying on the innocent, or weakening the fabric of society that made us dislike criminals in the first place. Therefore, even though he is a criminal, there is no reason to dislike King.
In this case, you calling regulation violence is the noncentral. The archetypical violence is assault. It is driven by anger, causes great physical harm to victims, and causes fear in the community. Since we don't like these things, calling something "violence" generally makes us think that thing is bad.
You're really saying, "Because you don't like violence, and regulation is violence, you should stop liking regulation." But regulation doesn't share the important features of being driven by anger, causing great phsyical harm to victims, and fear in the community that made us dislike violence in the first place. Therefore, even if regulation is in theory backed up by the possibility of violence (which is a bit of a stretch to begin with), there is no reason to care. It's utterly irrelevant to any reasonable conversation.
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...