@Victoribus Spolia
You said;
Sure, but the Jews were a stiff-necked and hard-hearted people, uniquely depraved.
Above the common ''massa damnata''? Possibly, the Fathers appear to agree with you from what I've read, like St. John Crysostom.
That is the point, the salvation of God was taken from them and given to a people "bearing its fruits."
When Christ the Redeemer came, salvation was extended to the ''Church of the Old Testament'' (''Abraham saw this day and was glad'', etc...) and to the greater Church, the ''Israel of God'' which will exist to the End.
The whole Old Testament is a guide of what-not-to-do for Christians regarding the Jews, and a demonstration of God's long-suffering, Grace, and Justice in spite of such.
I can't disagree, although perhaps for different reasons.
Once again, this is the Law, not necessarily the State.
All Rulers, VS, they wield not the Sword in vain. Only tyrants and usurpers are the exception to the rule. Now, you could make the case that in modern times there is no true authority in the world existent today, that it all perished eventually with the rise of the Social Contract theory of Government and the Westphalian system...
Technically the court of a feudal lord is organized people, but such is not really a state. The state presumes control over things that it does not specifically own.
In Autocracy, all the land is owned ''de jure'' by the Tsar or Caesar, the Emperor, and he disposes of it as he wishes, with an understanding with such forms of government that it is the rulers that establish all law, including whether or not to have private property, theoretically. Everybody is a Tenant of Somebody.
For instance, If I am a lord over my own property and I have tenant farmers on my lands, I can enforce my will upon them as they are on my land and are contractually obligated to follow my laws on that land (or leave).
Precisely, as I note above.
The state is different in that it enforces its will over lands that it does not presume to specifically own. This is especially true of all representative governments following the social contract system.
Good thing I as a Socialist (or I should say, a certain kind of Socialist) don't follow that idea or concept of the State.
Sure, but I wonder what is the cause of greater loss of life?
If we have learned anything from the 20th century, its that super-states like Nazi Germany, the United States, and the Soviet Union were capable of taking life on a scale and with a level of efficiency that no marauding gang of bandits or oppressive feudal lords could have possibly imagined.
I might argue that this violence is more a function of modern weapons, dishonorable as they are and fit for mere long distance butchery.
If you are going to defend the state on the basis that its a fair trade off to the violence that exists without a state, you are arguing from a position that cannot possibly be won, historically speaking.
No, it's probably an influence of Joseph de Maistre still upon my thought, but to me all bloodshed follows a mysterious purpose of justice and expiation, loosening somewhat the universal effect of human depravity upon the individual sinner. Executions can redress the social moral balance; but when this fails war is the other homeostatic mechanism. To be sure it's a mystery, but I know that the relatively innocent tend to suffer disproportionately in relation to the more guilty, in this life.
States of nature and nation-states can both yield harmony or violence, but the potential of mass violence, death, and destruction are far more likely under a nation-state than under a state of anarchic natural order and this is simply true based on the means at the disposal of such states contra their populace.
I'm sure then that you recall the more recent conversation we had in your thread on gun ownership, where it played out that the consistent advocates of self defense were the Communists and the Right Libertarians....
The means of the state to enforce its claims can indeed be called "force", but this is would be the same for land-owners in the absence of a government.
What makes a state different is that its a third party monopolist of force, force being something of a right that all should be able to engage in if necessary.
Is any State a true monopolist of force, though? All Governments have to have some sort of consent from the governed, or they simply wouldn't exist. However, far more common I think, is a mere rotation of the Elites
The state violates this right when it comes to individuals, especially patriarchs who should have the right to pursue justice and proper defense over their own families and over their own lands. The state denies them this right and Divine obligation.
Well, here we're getting more into the particulars of your ideal society. As for the OP therefore, we can both agree this is not right, what happened, although I see it more as an unjust ruling than over-reach of the State by it's very nature.