"There's the 'civil society argument' extension which asks if you really want to start resolving disagreements based on who can punch the hardest but I've noticed most people don't really have the patience to engage it. There's an unstated assumption that the left somehow has the numbers and will to win..."
Still holds up - oh how I wish this assumption were stated! Political violence isn't some trial by combat process where the gods favor whichever side has a more just cause. Sometimes the bad guys can punch the hardest, which should make the good guys wary of fisticuffs generally. Thinking game theoretically, if two opposing sides are both true believers, then they should want disagreement resolution to optimize for whoever has the better cause - like, idk, maybe some kind of adversarial process where each side's ideas are given a fair hearing. Skipping straight to clubbing one's enemies over the head makes me suspect that, for some, violence is less of a tactic and more of a goal.
"There's the 'civil society argument' extension which asks if you really want to start resolving disagreements based on who can punch the hardest but I've noticed most people don't really have the patience to engage it. There's an unstated assumption that the left somehow has the numbers and will to win..."
Still holds up - oh how I wish this assumption were stated! Political violence isn't some trial by combat process where the gods favor whichever side has a more just cause. Sometimes the bad guys can punch the hardest, which should make the good guys wary of fisticuffs generally. Thinking game theoretically, if two opposing sides are both true believers, then they should want disagreement resolution to optimize for whoever has the better cause - like, idk, maybe some kind of adversarial process where each side's ideas are given a fair hearing. Skipping straight to clubbing one's enemies over the head makes me suspect that, for some, violence is less of a tactic and more of a goal.