Comment: This is a great comment, and

(See in situ)

This is a great comment, and

This is a great comment, and I think absolutely true.

But it only refers to the violence that might be expected from individuals in a society that has chosen to live without much law enforcement.

It basically deals with how people with bad attitudes, poor impulse control and propensity for violence would be dealt with in the sort of rough communities bred by a lack of law.

Let me raise two points.

One, the kind of people who choose a rough society where they expect to have to defend themselves and raise a weapon are unique, they aren't universal and aren't likely a product of education. I think its a question of temperament, and many of the people of that kind of tough, independent temperament are the ones who end up on the edges of society where violence has to be regulated by men standing up in self defense.

The timid, who prefer public law enforcement and fear any violence, let alone gun violence, don't end up on the edge of the legal net where they would encounter such obstacles.

It seems like a big assumption to think that people who have chosen law, through their own timidity, can be forced somehow or convinced somehow to become rugged individualists. Some people are just soft, and will prefer to empower dogs to keep wolves at bay. You can't necessarily make all sheep into German shepherds, and its folly to believe people are inherently more German shepherd than sheep.

The second objection goes deeper.

Let's focus on violence that is not mere individual rowdiness and propensity to snap and act out in random aggression.

What about real, organized violence. I don't even mean the kind that springs from prohibition of trade in goods (black market violence).

I finished up Mises' Socialism today. Toward the end, he dealt with some behavior that was common in the 1920s and 30s by the trade union movement.

The trade unions were voluntary organizations whos activity was not really sanctioned by the law. Mises focus was on the nature of the tactic of the "general strike."

Not just the strike to get a wage raise, but the general strike to shut down production of necessary goods, basically holding society hostage, threatening great bodily harm to the hundreds of thousands of dependents on the system of market delivery of goods.

Even aside from their contract breaking and gangsterism and violence toward strike breakers, these general strikes were a grave menace and in essence a form of violence that threatened the whole fabric of society and often ended up on political capture of power by these socialist parties.

Often, this kind of thing had to be put down by force and resulted in civil war. Fascism was born in fighting this kind of mass organized political violence.

But in a sense, much of this activity was voluntary and simply free association and mutual action - cease working. The law was violated around the edges, intimidating "scabs" and strike breakers, damaging company and private property.

But suffice it so say that this kind of organized social and political violence cannot be dealt with in the same way as handling a rowdy fellow at a bar who's had too many drinks.