It always comes down to violence and that argument makes me less sympathetic not more. I'm not interested in paying off what amounts to a rabid unproductive population for some hope of safety. Also, I'm not particularly scared of people that can't manage to find some success in the modern US either.

So if you argument is that we should increase taxes so another Mao doesn't exist, I'd rather just kill Mao.

Only one of the two reasons I put forward came down to violence and that's just reality. Humanity is the product of 3-4 billion years of evolution and most of that time has been an extremely violent struggle for survival and advancement. That is what we are. We live in a paper-thin veneer of sophistication and civility while we are comfortable and our bellies are full, but every last one of us is still an animal. We're dangerous animals too and all it takes is a tiny bit of hopelessness and fewer than a dozen missed meals for that to become evident.

You might not be sympathetic to your fellow animals, but you can bet that if a bunch of them frightened, angry, and hungry start circling because they see you as all that stands between them and survival they won't be very sympathetic to you either.

We already make a number of concessions to preserve a polite society. Keeping your fellow animals fed and making sure they have a chance to advance (something to work for) is a small price for security and stability because otherwise those things are impossible.

You can think of it as ransom, but I prefer to think of it as an investment in and routine maintenance of society itself and ultimately we all benefit and see returns on that investment.

Power is always expressed through violence. Someone wants to use the land you're currently using. They leave it alone, even if their situation is miserable. Why? You can call in the cops who will subject them to violence and make their lives worse. What if they can take the cops? Well, wherever you happen to be, it used to be part of someone else's domain; it was taken away by violence. Violence shapes society, it shapes history, the threat of violence keeps the world ticking along smoothly, and responding properly to danger helps to ensure that smooth action. your sympathies don't matter.

You're probably right to not be afraid, but things can kick off when the circumstances are right for it. And we haven't arrived at this historical moment by being nice.

The point of my comment is that violence goes both ways.

I get what you mean and I do sympathize somewhat.

The fact is, however, that modern society doesn't fit everyone. Since we won't allow people to withdraw from society that means we're actively forcing people to live a specific way of life that some simply cannot handle.

Simply putting more pressure on those groups will result in the forming of parallel societies and in the long run that means that those parallel societies will form a separate culture and try to secede. If we stop that there will be conflict. History tells us such conflict will be very bloody, no matter who ends up on top.

This is a cycle that Western Civilization has dealt with for thousands of years. Personally, I wouldn't mind trying to break it this time.

> Since we won't allow people to withdraw from society that means we're actively forcing people to live a specific way of life that some simply cannot handle.

Sometimes (although far less often than some people would like to assume) the person who withdraws is perfectly capable of handling the demands we force on people in our society, but they simply prefer to not participate. These people usually aren't sitting around all day collecting welfare checks, often they are the career homeless or living in isolated shacks in mountains. I can't really fault them if that kind of lifestyle is actually preferable to them.

You're right, there are definitely people who choose a specific lifestyle willingly and by all means let them do so.

We shouldn't assume it applies to anyone just because it applies to some indivuduals though.

Let's look at this from another view then.

Those rabid unproductive people are rabid and unproductive because society can't provide basic necessities such as 'housing' or 'food' or 'water'. They are being made rabid by people that would deny them the basics needed to survive.

Your argument is essentially 'Let them eat cake' and if you're at all familiar with history, I need not mention the possible origin of that phrase. When you create a desperate class of people willing to do anything to survive, you shouldn't be surprised when they show up at your doorstep seeking to drag you out into the streets.