zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
I was just at a conference today where one of the presenters referenced the "Trust barometer": https://www.edelman.com/trust/2025/trust-barometer

According to that study, 23% approved of the statement "I approve hostile activism to drive change by threatening or committing violence". It's even higher if you only focus on 18-34 year olds.

Full report here: https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2025-0...

>>ipytho+BD
Is it possible that violence is just more rational for today's 18-34 y/o than it was at some other points in recent history?

>>mothba+DE
The argument against using violence to achieve you ends is that if everyone does it, it is bad for everyone. If those who do it do not face repercussions then they will gain undue advantage, motivating everyone to match their actions, which again, is bad for everyone. The solution is the social contract and the rule of law. If enough people agree that anyone taking that path should face repercussions sufficient to not grant a net advantage, then enforcement of the law prevents others from taking the path of violence to reach parity with the violent

When the rule of law is eroded, which it has been, in the US and worldwide. Then it does indeed become more rational to use violence to restore the rule of law. Unfortunately it also increases the motivation towards violence for personal gain, that makes the task of restoring the rule of law all that more difficult. Countries have spent years trying to recover that stability once it is lost.

>>Lerc+kI
Rule of law in itself is not a worthwhile institution - and is not enough to keep violence at distance.

You need protection, non corruption and a level of equality to be protected by that rule of law.

I think that is what mostly has been eroded - also the poorest 10% need a reason to believe in rule of law.

>>tossan+zK
Rule of law is necessary but not sufficient.

The others don't matter if it's lacking, because social contracts without contracts meaning anything are worthless.