T Nation

Is Aggressive Society Good?


No, aggressive society is the antithesis of a prosperous society.

I contend that society based on aggression was the archetype of all primitive cultures. These were dark times for mankind and humanity in general. This is the same archetype that all governments must necessarily follow or else they cannot really govern.

It was not until the Enlightenment and the age of reason that man was able to discover the laws of economics and how they shape civilization and could therefore assert the benefit of unhampered free trade.

The major implication of the laws of economics is that it is not government aggression that safeguards mankind but rather that mankind can only be safeguarded when individuals embrace free trade and adhere to the principle of nonaggression.

An understanding of economics reveals the notion that nonaggressive society ultimately must bring about peace, freedom, and prosperity for the majority of people.


care to provide examples? I was personally thinking of the "going a viking" raids of the Norse peoples. It was their relative prosperity that allowed them the freedom to go a viking . . . how does that interact with your theorem?


Good luck finding a new non-aggressive species to replace us with. Us earthlings have long realized the very imperfect nature of mankind. Therefore, we stick to more realistic arguments. You know, questions of too much or too little governance. A constant struggle of balance. But, never none. If anarcho-capitalistas and communistas could just find their utopian race to live out their respective worldviews it'd rain maple syrup, lollipops would grow on trees, and puppies would stay puppies (that's when they're the cutest!).


The man who WANTS is a aggressive violent man. He is forever in conflict.

These men will exist with and without government.


Rape and pillage allowed the Vikings to prosper at whose expense? Aggression only benefits the aggressor -- and only to the extent the aggressors do not destroy means that would have befitted them in the future; for example, they might have been more prosperous with trade instead of pillage as trade always brings about more wealth than destruction.

This does not even need to be proved because it is logical.


What you say is self defeating and does not lend any value to a discussion about mankind overcoming his imperfections.

It is not the nature of mankind that is imperfect but rather mankind's ability to reason that is imperfect -- and even still this is a massive generalization, because:

Without the ability to reason and learn new ideas mankind would have never even progressed beyond pitiful scavengers feeding off the rotted corpses of other unlucky beasts.

Good thing what you say is not true.


This is not necessarily true: the man who wants can also become entrepreneurial and bring about new wealth for other's benefit. Thus wants can also bring about prosperity, too.


Historically speaking the Norse people were enjoying bountiful harvests due to the Medieval Warming period, they were active in trae all around the european coastline and simultaneously chose to pillage the relatively isolated and vulnerable places an as the ease of these raids became apparent they turned more and more to raiding. It was not of economic necessity that they turned to raiding but due to plenty of food, plenty of time and an easy target of opportunity. So their prosperity enabled their aggression, rather than their poverty


Yes but trade rather than pillage would have benefited those they pillaged thus proving my point:

Trade and nonaggressive relationships always bring about more prosperity for more people.


Except when your non-aggressive society is having it's collective throat slit by aggressive societies. So, government comes into existence to handle issues of common cause, such as defense.

Weren't you also a socialist at some point? Have you ever considered that you're just attracted to "far out, dude" ideologies that won't ever have the chance to be proven wrong? Well, without saying something like, "see, that's not an example of my ideology, because X happened."


Sloth: you're still proving my point.

Destroying possible trading partners destroys the possibility of greater prosperity.

I do not care about what civilizations have historically done I am only concerned about the possibilities of what civilizations are capable of achieving.

Now just answer the question of concern, please:

Is aggressive society good? Yes or no.



But you provide a false choice at any rate - a society can be both aggressive and prosperous.


Translation of original post:

"Hey, I really, really want to rehash the basic principles of my fave new ideology for, like, the thousandth time even though I rehash the basic principles of my fave new ideology in, like every thread, no matter the thread's topic."


I can think of the example of couple rulers who sacked, pillaged, and conquered much of the Asian continent, to build prosperous civilizations, not only for themselves but also for those they conquered.

I also think an aggressive society has a greater chance of prospering if they are challenged by another aggressive society.


The man who wants, who desires, who strives for a certain cause.. this man immediately produces conflict when he determines that he wants something. He wants to get to B , but he is stuck at A. A huge vastness of distance has been created between himself and his goal. And when he wants power.. fame.. not only is there conflict between himself, but there is separatism between others. For to get to the top, others must fall.

With this conflict, comes fear and insecurity. The fear that he might not get to B. The anxiety that he might not get to B quick enough. And with this fear, you become a slave. You are no longer free. You compare, conform, and imitate. You follow the accepted pattern. Or you rebel against the pattern. Either way, your still in the prison cell. The WANT has barred you in.

Even in this concept.. in this ideal of a non-aggressive society - there is conflict. There is the division between the 'what is' and the 'should be', aka the ideal.

The best, most ludicrous contradiction I can think of showcasing this( often espoused by our local Communist) is "I want Socialism to happen" . Thats right up there with "Prove reason".
Absolutely idiotic.

Bottom Line:
If you want - you will be guaranteed internal violence. Whether this permeates to the external is up to the individual and their environment. It usually does.

With that said - you can produce prosperity and wealth without ever striving for it. But if you have a society full of 'ambitious' men ... fear will always be present. And fear is never good. NEVER. GOOD. Sure, there is those that say fearful men produce great things. But it's always at the expense of the man who produced it.



OP- Shit don't work. Get over it. Move on.


When used to police criminal acts and or defend the society in question, yes.


I am not offering any choice.

I am saying nonaggression always results in a more prosperous society than when aggression is used.

It is logically true.

Accept it and move on. Or don't. I don't care.


Aggression is the initiation of violence, coercion or theft.

Self defense is not aggression.

Reclaiming rightful property is not aggressive.

I agree that self defense is necessary.

I disagree that aggression is a necessary component of civilization.


Until the non-aggresive society has been thrown into chaos by the aggressive within and without. Or what, will everyone be lobotomized at birth?