-
Violence is a tool, and as such, it functions effectively in many contexts. Therefore, we should all acknowledge its role and prepare to use it when necessary, both as individuals and as a society. The monopoly on violence is the cornerstone of the political state. Proper use of this monopoly can transform an impoverished society into a productive and prosperous environment. Conversely, misuse can lead to a stagnant society that benefits only a select few. Wars and violence remain present in our world, but recent times appear to have been more peaceful than the historical average. Some argue that this relative peace is more than a temporary phenomenon and represents a consistent decline in violence. If so, why? I believe the reason is simple: abusing violence has become counterproductive in the long term. While violence is a powerful tool, it is also inherently dangerous. It is crucial not to trivialize it, as doing so risks undermining the progress and achievements of our society. In combat sports, it is common to see fighters exchanging gestures of respect after a match. This is more than a mere formality, it symbolizes the refusal to trivialize the violence applied. Such gestures place violence within a controlled and healthy framework, celebrating the sport while distancing it from the dangerous allure of abusing others, which could have harmful ripple effects. Since the monopoly on violence lies with the state rather than individuals, the responsibility for its proper use rests primarily with governments. How states wield this power significantly shapes their relationship with societies. To illustrate this, let’s consider a hypothetical scenario involving two societies: society (A) and society (B). Where each society is capable of producing a certain amount of goods in a year. Society (A) produces 6 squares, and society (B) produces 6 circles. | **Initial situation** | | | ---------- | ------------------------------------------ | | _Society A_ = 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 | _Society B_ = 🔵🔵🔵🔵🔵🔵 | The relationship between the two societies can primarily take one of two forms: 1. A positive relationship (_win-win_), characterized by mutual respect and a focus on product trade. | **Win - Win** 💱 | | | ---------- | ------------------------------------------ | | _Society A_ = 🟩🟩🟩🔵🔵🔵 | _Society B_ = 🔵🔵🔵🟩🟩🟩 | If there is a positive relationship, the two societies will exchange their products throughout the year. As a result, both societies will retain their original 6 products but enjoy an improved quality of life due to greater product diversity—each will have both squares and circles. 2. A negative relationship (_win-lose_), characterized by confrontation and a focus on conflict. | **Win - Lose** 💥 | | | ---------- | ------------------------------------------ | | _Society A_ = 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🔵🔵🔵🔵🔵🔵 | _Society B_ = ❌ → lack of food| If a negative relationship prevails, the society that most effectively wields the resource of violence will dominate. In this case, society (A) would prevail, keeping both its own production, the 6 squares, and the production of the defeated society (B), the 6 circles. As a result, society (A) would enjoy a high quality of life due to its increased wealth, comprising 6 squares and 6 circles, while society (B) would be left in a state of absolute poverty. The _win-lose_ scenario may seem advantageous for the winning party. However, it is ultimately a short-term strategy that incurs in significant long-term costs, which any advanced society would seek to avoid. Let’s examine why. If society (A) excessively and repeatedly exploits society (B), there will eventually come a point where the entire population of society (B) starves to death. The result? Society (A)’s quality of life reverts to its initial state, producing only 6 squares, because society (B) has perished, taking with it its technical know-how and resources. In hindsight, a win-win scenario would have been the smarter choice. | **Win - Lose** 💥 | | | ---------- | ------------------------------------------ | | _Society A_ = 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 | _Society B_ = ❌→ lack of food, hunger → ☠️ | If society (A) is somewhat wise, it will recognize that it cannot completely destroy society (B) but must subject it to measured exploitation without annihilating it. By doing so, society (A) sacrifices some short-term profits; instead of gaining 12 units per year, it gains 10, allowing society (B) to retain 2 units to survive. While this arrangement benefits society (A) more than a win-win scenario, it creates a precarious and unsustainable situation for society (B). | **Measured abuse** 📐 | | | ---------- | ------------------------------------------ | | _Society A_ = 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🔵🔵🔵🔵 | _Society B_ = 🔵🔵→ precariousness | History has shown us that society (B), sooner or later, will confront the abuse inflicted by society (A) through one of two possible scenarios: 1. Fight 2. Flight If society (B) decides to fight, it will keep all the production if it wins, and if it loses, society (A) will take control. An important consequence is that, in the short term, production will decrease due to the effort involved in the war. And in the long term, one of the two societies will disappear, and we will return to a situation of excessive exploitation. | **Fight** ⚔️ | | | ---------- | ------------------------------------------ | | _Society A_ = 🟩🟩🟩🟩🔵🔵🔵 | _Society B_ = 🔵→ (1) fight or (2) flight | If, instead of fighting, society (B) decides to abandon its territory, society (A) will also return to its initial situation. This is because, if society (B) leaves, it takes with it its production, human resources, and technical know-how. | **Flight** 🧳 | | | ---------- | ------------------------------------------ | | _Society A_ = 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 | _Society B_ = 🛩| **Conclusion**: If, instead of entering an unproductive vicious circle, the two societies had realized from the beginning that the wisest approach is to establish a positive relationship, they would have saved a lot of wasted energy and pain. This could be the reason for the reduction in violence: societies may be starting to figure out this game. **Note**: Please note that this mental framework is an oversimplification; the reality may involve many other variables not considered here.