Fallacious reasoning, and pretty obvious at that. I give you a cup of water - some water has been poisoned by heavy metals. If you drink the cup of water, will you get metal poisoning? The only intellectually honest answer is: the question is flawed. The same way it doesn't follow that
Some water is poisoned ⇏ All water is poisoned
It also doesn't follow that
The suppression of violence begets control ⇏ All control suppresses violence.

This is further proven by your following statement

What is the difference between the conditions where it is common and uncommon?

Which opposes your own argumentation.

[–] tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You said a state must have control to stop thievery and murder, but I've never heard of a state that successfully stopped those things, is what I was getting at. The point about conditions where violence is common or less common is that there are more primary factors to violence than whether or not someone will be punished by state forces for that violence. There are more effective ways to combat violence and theft than a police state.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Sure – state healthcare, state infrastructure, state base income all help.