I don't disagree, but if you ask me which of these two evils I would prefer, I would always pick the peaceful one.

> people die in quiet desperation

To me this seems a much more dignified way to die than in a fit of mad violence, trying to take what isn't yours.

And likewise: everybody wants dignity. But I don’t see anything particularly dignified in suicides of shame or abandonment.

The whole problem here is that this isn't true. Some significant majority of us do. But there is enough of a minority who are content with violence and chaos as to totally destroy peace and order if they are left unchecked. This is true basically any place criminality is studied. The only remaining question is how do we deal with this minority?

As someone without aggressive inclinations, I'm don't have sympathy or regard for those who display them. As a matter of primacy, I would like to live in a peaceful society. Anyone who violates this basic social contract has lost their humanity in my eyes. I would not object to their summary execution (in cases of absolute certainty of guilt), much as dangerous animals are routinely euthanized.

The maintenance of civilized order, and resolution of conflict via due process, are the only things distinguishing people from animals. This isn't remotely comparable to making the trains run on time.

> I don’t see anything particularly dignified in suicides of shame or abandonment.

To me there is nothing more dignified than being unwilling to impose yourself on others. If no one wants to help you, and you cannot continue on your own, then taking your own life is the only dignified course, given the alternatives.

> people you deem unworthy

I'm not deeming anyone "unworthy". I'm just pointing out that humans who act literally like dangerous animals should be treated as such. To me, humanity is a mode of behaviour, not an irrevocable trait.

I eagerly await your application of the same logic to tailpipe emissions.

Aggression and violence are clearly very different things. If they weren't, self-defence would not be a justification for anything. Ignoring this clear and sharp distinction does nothing to help you either.

Why should humans who behave indistinguishably from dangerous wild animals be treated any differently?

Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective?

> primary danger being to themselves

The secondary danger posed to innocent people, as well as the knock-on effects of normalizing minor property crime (colloquially "we can't have nice things") and the erosion of the innate trust in strangers that more civilized places tend to have, don't seem worth feeling good about how empathetic and virtuous you are.

Because they aren't dangerous wild animals, while dangerous wild animals are. In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration, while in many kinds of animals it's the immutable default.

That difference shouldn't be too difficult to grasp, or is it?

> Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective?

Not at fixing the immediate danger, but yes, as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective.

The humans in question are dangerous, they're not civilized (so they're wild), and they're animals, so yes, they are.

> In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration

This isn't substantiated by research. Quite the opposite actually, psychologists have found that no intervention is effective in modifying violent antisocial behaviour in young males (and it's almost entirely young males). The only solution seems to be incarceration until around the age of 30, at which point most people simply age out of these behaviour patterns.

Also, there are many dangerous animals that can be rehabilitated, pet dogs for instance. It doesn't stop us from mandating they be put down.

> as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective.

I'm asserting it's effective at maintaining peace and order. I'm also asserting that the fact of peace and order is more important than the treatment of those who violate it.

And I could assert quite a lot about your assertions, the mindset behind them, and what kind of society that leads to.

But I can't be arsed to: No matter how many deluded authoritarians you manage to bring to their senses, or just reduce to a heap of smoking online cinders, more fresh ones just keep popping up. And I got bored with Usenet flamewars decades ago.

I am certainly not a libertarian. Having said that, here is a scenario which clarifies the difference between "aggression" and "violence", imo - someone peacefully living in their home, when someone breaks in for a burglary. At that point, if the homeowner shoots and kills the burglar, that behavior is non-aggressive, violent and justified in my opinion.

So yes, definitely not hairsplitting and nothing to do with liberatarianism.

Then you would’ve euthanized nearly all of Japan circa WWII, since their widely popular militaristic regime committed countless atrocities across Asia/Pacific and shattered peaceful society for millions around the world.