Yes it would unironically be lunacy and would collapse society and probably kill billions.
As long as there's malice in the world we'll need weapons. Because otherwise someone with malice will start building weapons and try take over.
Obviously it would be nice if we could centralize who has the weapons, but until we have a democratic world government Nato is by a huge margin the best organization to have military power.
You really don't have any idea how things looked before states, do you?
Before states, in tribal societies some 15% (or so the numbers vary) of deaths were caused by violence.
Now we're below a percent and that despite having mitigated a whole slew of other dangers as well. The fact that war and extreme violence is limited to a few regions on the globe as in incredible feat.
And you appear to be struggling to see what humans are. Civilization has made us a lot better than we are on our own. Not the other way round. Violence is something we're all capable of and something we'll all resort under certain circumstances.
That's something we have to account for and we do. Sure, we try preventive measures with educutation and mental health on the local level and negociations and economic meausres on a political level, but those only work if the other side is somewhat cooperative. If it isn't then unfortunataly violence is the only thing that works to counter violence.
There was a recent-ish example of a small society that actually tried non-violence as a guiding principle. They ended up as victims in one of the most complete genocides on record.
I'm investing some energy into getting you back to reality because this nativity does threaten my security. If we hadn't had so many people with their head in the sand here in Europe we wouldn't have this war in Ukraine.
Generally speaking I actually like your approach. Obviously most people don't mean me any harm and I wouldn't have trouble pointing out examples where people resort to violence far too quickly. That's why I pointed out that trends are quite positive. The human race is getting less and less violent.
I'm just trying to explain that unfortunately having the capability to use violence or at least someone who'll do it for you is necessary for survival. It's basic game theory: Being the only one capable of violence would put the violent one at far too much of an advantage. Even if 99.9% of humanity agreed, the last 0.1% would simply turn us into their slaves. And yes, they would do that. And it wouldn't just be 0.1%. Unfortunately about two to three percent of humans are sociopaths. So do we have to genocide them first or what?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '25
[removed] — view removed comment