[delayed]

I agree its not a sharp example, there are lots of interacting effects and factors. But to me at least the statistics seem rather overwhelming. Social structure and rules and enforcement seem more tailored to mop up aberrations rather than constrain "normal" behavior. There is probably social studies of toddlers etc that analyze this question when conforming behaviors are less developed. I don't recall reading something that proves it is only learned cultural norms that "pacify" us.

In different places and times there were different thresholds on the level of violence acceptable to society.

Both cases are arguably examples not of individual violence but organized group violence.

Go for it, argue...

The criminal was a) condemned, so organized state violence and b) brought over by the entire village, so a group of people. Not an individual outburst of violence, then.

The group of people trying to head-butt the chicken to death are playing a sport. Often enough to at some time add trumpets to it.

* Mons is not a village, it is a city in present day Belgium.

* head-butt the chicken please re-read the quote, it doesn't mention chickens.

* When the entertainment committee invests in quartering of a human being, it reflects the norms and attitudes of the general population.

If you are interested in the topic, "THE WANING OF THE MIDDLE AGES" is open source and text is available here https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Waning_of_the_Middle_Ages

The same forces that make organized violence probably also drive out individual violence. The group monopolizes violence.

I would say that group violence is channeling the violence of individuals to achieve some goal a group might have.

Chimp Empire is worth watching in this context.

The most basic definition of state is that it is some institution with the monopoly of violence. Think of it, who in all myriad society organisations and hierarchies has the legitimacy to use force? The state. Even murder is allowed and trained for, if you are part of the state organisation, normally called armed forces. Many anarchists in the XIX century despised the idea of state because accepting it means accepting organised violence and importantly a monopoly on it.

Reaching aaaall the way back to high school, this is basic locke theory of government. You give up a freedom to gain some protection against the jerks who would use that freedom against you.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/

It does seem to me that most political arguments fall into this category

I would argue that the OG of state violence monopoly is Thomas Hobbes and the concept of sovereign as the deposit of the individual’s ability for violence. Will read the link though. In Portugal there is also philosophy in high school and with time I realize that it was the most practical and important class I ever had and at the time me and my colleagues completely missed its value.

There is a book about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book)

What? Even in that needlessly pedantic interpretation, their point still stands.