Not trying to be edgy or anything, but why is offensive violence bad...

Not trying to be edgy or anything, but why is offensive violence bad? The vast majority of wars in human history were not fought in self-defense, they were fought under the pretext of the "right of conquest", where it was just an agreed fact of the times that the weak should submit to the strong. And if the answer is that it encourages violence to be done to you in return, well clearly you aren't very thorough in your job. Why don't you ask Sulla of Rome how he was assassinated in response to his purges? Oh wait you can't, he wasn't assassinated he died from alcohol abuse, no one could assassinate because he killed anyone in Rome that so much as had a negative opinion of him. We learned the lesson from Caesar: don't forgive your enemies and let them live, they'll only stab you in the back later. Hence why Augustus the first emperor led a prosperous reign, because he didn't make the same mistakes as his predecessor, he killed anyone that opposed him without hesitation.

If you have power, it only makes sense to believe in might makes right. Because the reality is that the good guys aren't the ones who do good things, they're the people who win. The only reason Right of Conquest is seen as bad now is not because human nature changed, but because the killing power of machines reached a point where civilization itself could go extinct.

Because if you start blatantly attacking other countries without just cause, other countries will start making coalitions to kick you ass.

Yeah that worked out real great for the Celts

Also I didn't just mean war, I meant violence in general.

> The only reason Right of Conquest is seen as bad now is not because human nature changed, but because the killing power of machines reached a point where civilization itself could go extinct.
so you have answered yourself

Not every individual has a nuclear-armed military.

"Civilized Ethics" and moralfaggotry.
Besides most of the developed nations on the world can get what they want without the need for open warfare, just discreet ones.

Yeah but what about internal shit like your political enemies? Hence why I only mentioned war once.

>they were fought under the pretext of the "right of conquest",
What? Most civilizations needed excuses if they wanted to go to war with other people.
If it was with tribals they'd make up something about civilizing. If it was with other civilizations they'd make up a slight.

>what about internal shit like your political enemies?
You have the media for that, basically just discredit the opposition over and over to the point of irrelevance at that point the lose all support. Doesn't always work though, especially when a disgruntled populace isn't on the same boat as you. And for the big ones you go JFK.

In less developed nations blowing their brains out is still a valid option.

because you use thugs and thugs end ruling over nerds after the job is done
like you have the SA and then you need to create the SS to remove them

>You have the media for that, basically just discredit the opposition over and over to the point of irrelevance at that point the lose all support.

Like I said before, if Caesar taught us anything then it's that leaving your enemies alive is only going to bite you in the ass later.

Getting support from the populace while murdering other political leaders is almost impossible to do openly this days. The system which we run our nations rarely allows for it, to do so would break down a lot of things and many people would lose money and the rich elite can't have that. And its not like a politician could just raise an army to take power, brute force in the higher echelons lost its teeth a long time ago.

Just as recently as WW2, Imperial Japan basically ran that way.

How so? Did they brute force to power? Or just brand political threats as enemies and killed?

Both, and the private army thing because the military was such an insular group that its loyalty was to itself and not the government, which meant that they could essentially go to war without government approval.

Well can't do that with western governments now. Too much control, from logistics to information. A first world nations' armed forces might as well be a business franchise at this point.

That's what they said pre-WW1, a war thought to be impossible because there was too much globalism and control, and there was no upside to having a general european war.

No what they said is that armies were too strong and big for any actual conflicts. The difference now is that we are not building up war materials for war, just for profit. The military industrial complex is a business interested in perpetuating its trade, an actual all out war would threaten that.

>No what they said is that armies were too strong and big for any actual conflicts

I'm going by what Lord Kitchener said.

Well then Bless his mine exploded ass. The problem is that everyone else but him wanted to see rifles go pew and cannons go boom. People still had illusions of grandeur regarding war in those times.

Possibly because if you have the power to attack someone, you usually are stronger than them, and it is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak not subjugate them from pretty much all societal stand points. Humans want to create a world that is good (whatever that means) for everyone not just a select few.

At least his statement was more logical than John Maynard Keynes's statement that once the money dried up, the war would stop. But like Kitchener also said, "no economic crisis has ever stopped a full-scale war already in progress". And he was right, the countries just printed devalued money, or borrowed money from the Americans that they then used to buy supplies from the Americans.

You can claim to subjugate them for their own good.

Poor Kitchenman died an escapegoat. Still a fullscale war between nations are worst case scenarios for the industry. That's why only small scale "wars" are fought today, still gotta pay tax money for over developed weapons and expensive logistics, just so you can sell some more.

Starting a war is frowned upon becauee most people dont want to fucking die.

>Why don't you ask Sulla of Rome how he was assassinated in response to his purges?
This view is painfully shortsighted. Yeah, Sulla ruled like a king and jammed his dick into everyone's face as he pleased. Sulla also broke the republic and instituted a century of chaos that the Roman state barely recovered from.

Ask yourself what is it that you're trying to do? Look out for #1? Okay, but bear in mind that if everyone else acts like you civilization will not survive. Actually trying to build a better place? That's gonna take instituting some rules, and accepting that those rules will not always benefit you.

>Hence why Augustus the first emperor led a prosperous reign, because he didn't make the same mistakes as his predecessor, he killed anyone that opposed him without hesitation.
Haha, like fuck he did. The most important thing Augustus learned from Caesar is not to overly antagonize the aristocracy. Augustus was the ultimate compromiser.

What happens when we build an all-drone army?