1) most individuals have engaged in offensive or defensive violence at some point in life, even if only as children. it is indeed a part of our nature, curtailed mainly by training into a culture or morality imposed from above, by family and from society, not sprung from inner nature.
2) the relative peacefulness of modern communities can hardly be used as an argument against coercive legal order. it is a product of it. at the very least, it can't be claimed that peacefulness under the law is proof of peacefulness in absence of law. pointing to how people behave under a coercive legal order as evidence of how they would behave in uncharted territory, in the absence of coercive law, courts, and publicly funded justice, is not an argument that can be logically maintained.
3) primitive tribes were hardly peaceful. they may have had internal peaceful relations, held together by hierarchy, by implicit violence, by mores and taboos and customs. that is peace and altruism toward the ingroup, much like the peace within a family unit: hierarchy, implicit violence, altruism and particularism, but no written law.
outwardly, the tribe is at war with all other tribes, and has no sense of geography other than the line where other tribes start. war is intense, vicious, brutal, constant, and nearly pointless economically, and involves torture and cannibalism. the outgroup is dehumanized and demonized, so that every cruelty is permissible.
the idea of primitive tribes being peaceful is naive and ignorant of factual history. it is not a coincidence that civilized, capitalistic pioneers considered them savages, childlike in their innocence and in their cruelty and ignorance. they considered natives backward, and did everything to suppress and wipe out their insular and savage ways.
whether that was 'right' or 'wrong' isn't at issue. it appears to have been inevitable that cultures with advanced technology, dense populations, high division of labor, would not forever allow half the globe to be blocked to settlement by a thin wall of weak, divided savages, thinly populating coastlines and living a subsistence, hunter gatherer lifestyle. '
the tribes themselves, ever at war, were eager to use any advantage or alliance with the newcomers to destroy the tribes living side by side with them, who were almost identical in every way. thus willing to befriend the civilized man to get his weapons to use against other tribes. consider that a free lesson in real history.
4) the State may well be created by the violent rather than the peaceful. but the peaceful lacked the ability to defend themselves from the violent, in order for this original State to arise. therefore it doesn't matter who originated the state, because in conditions without it, the "good people" were defenseless. they obviously needed better protection if they were unable to prevent the violent people from getting into power. if their own state hadn't formed, violently or otherwise, some neighboring state would have overrun them.
5) if the people are therefore defenseless against the violence of the powerful, then clearly they need an organized apparatus, funded somehow, and able to specialize in defense, to deter or defend against these obviously prolific organizations of violent men. i.e., government and military.
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are no