LittleAndAlone said:
All laws, orders, judgements, rulings etc by the state are implicit threats of violence.
Either this is appropriate or you are advocating for a dissolution of legal rights, responsibilities and protections?
LittleAndAlone said:
There will never be a guarantee that some individuals won't do violence, but when you have governments, violence is guaranteed and frequent.
Can you think of even a single example of a functioning state giving way to a reduction in violence?
If anything the interaction of the guarantee that some individuals will commit acts of violence and the sometimes inconsistent response of a state is the more problematic.
LittleAndAlone said:
Ignore this ruling and decide you aren't going to jail either, see what happens. The state is always the first to puff their chest eager to threaten and use violence to coerce without consent. Always. Anyone who leverages the state to impose their will on others is complicit in that violence.
We are policed by consent in a democratic society.
The state is never the first to enforce class division, by violent means or otherwise, as it was built to expedite that process. State violence is a function of class violence, which in turn is a function of what later became known as natural law. Primacy goes a long way back in layers and one does not supercede the previous.
Everyone leverages the state thus, some more purposefully or effectively than others. If this is complicity then so be it but it is not much of a distinction.
LittleAndAlone said:
Such unchallenged power needs to be stripped or simply made irrelevant by any means necessary.
By the means of unchallenged power?
LittleAndAlone said:
If you can't stomach insurmountable counter violence to deter state violence, then imagine a future disruptive technology like personal force fields that rendered all forms of modern weapons harmless and everybody had them. The state would become useless and their stranglehold on power would dissolve in less than a day because they world have no power to threaten anybody.
Allowing for magic, yes, things would work rather differently. This is a completely unrealistic scenario however.
LittleAndAlone said:
Petty complaints, rulings, and power trips over others like this one would be meaningless. People would just have to learn to accept "No" and move along and leave people be instead of trying to assert their dominance. They wouldnt even have a choice, what could they or anybody do?
Whatever they liked by the sounds of it. In your hypothetical world without consequences they might well just act with impunity. Arson springs to mind as an effective means to assert dominance over a business's ability to trade in a given location in a world where one is protected from repercussions.
LittleAndAlone said:
Lol imagine keeping your income for yourself and they can't do anything about it.
Who can't? The magic forcefield company who is replacing state functions? They won't be cheap, and distribution to everyone will require heavy subsidies for those who cannot afford the high subscription fees.
Private profit for public goods has never made the public better off.
LittleAndAlone said:
If you are in disagreement, or this concept of the state's power being nullified terrifies you, then you are among those who believe they have a right to bypass consent and coerce others. Pretty simple.
False. This is a strawman argument and intellectually disrespectful. It is easy to make slip-ups like these online so I will accept your apology and retraction before they are offered but please do be more careful moving forward as I am sure that you do not mean in your excitement to cause upset in others.
For clarity's sake I am someone deeply suspicious of power. This is as a part of a vulnerable minority but also as a result of personal and professional interest. I have experience working within and without exceptionally well entrenched power structures.
I do not expect you were aware of any of this, or more that I could add besides, but this is not grounds to presume an equal and asymmetric ignorance either. For my part I am making a conscious effort to avoid falling into that same trap.
The difficulty is that, whilst a different perspective can be enlightening and surprising, on the balance of probability and of the evidence as presented there is a disparity.
We both certainly have blind spots in our knowledge - there are entire philosophical traditions I am essentially ignorant of - but I can at least say that I am aware of where many of mine lie, and not as a present reactive judgment. I challenge you to do the same.
Of course I have spent longer thinking harder about this topic than most people will ever have cause to contemplate and I have done so with a higher level of education behind me than most will seriously consider. I am not an expert on the subject per se but I could produce an undergraduate module on the topic without too much difficulty.
All of which is a rather long winded way of explaining why I don't care to be disrespected on these grounds I.e. where I am passionate and thus sensitive to undue affront.
% correct. Times are a changing one diaper at a time! 
