Governments are The Number one Killer

[Rev. Rye]

Are you saying that I need to create an entire system of society to function just to say that we should put down the guns?

Well, yeah. There's always going to be a bunch of bad apples, but, really, without that, those bad apples are going to see fit to take over. Then, there are two outcomes:
1) You don't get guns and you die.
2) You get guns and this starts up a war which will only end when A) An outside force sets in, or B) One side is either destroyed or enslaved. Needless to say, it's a far cry from your view.

But I know for sure that we should not organise society by pointing guns at each other to solve social problems.

That said, whether we should not do something or not doesn't mean it's possible to do something. And, seriously, there's no guarantee an anarchistic society will be any less violent than the normal society. Somalia, in fact, is showing the exact opposite.

I could make predictions on how a non violent society would function, but that is more advanced.

You ever heard of the Moriori? They were a perfectly pacifistic society living on the Chatham Islands. Then Europeans discovered them. And then the Maori of New Zealand finished them off. They did not last much longer after that.

The purpose of my threads is to illuminate any person who is sceptical of the violence and hypocrisy of the world.

And you fail to show any viable alternative to it.

A society that runs on violence and threats of violence is immoral and inefficient, we all get that principle in micro examples. So let's apply that to government at large.

In micro examples it works, because there, we have small groups of like-minded people. And they oftentimes try to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. Applying it to large populations doesn't work, because, well, people aren't like-minded. Immoral or not, it works a whole lot better than anarchy. Are you picking up a pattern here?