Have you ever considered that security services are redistributed every bit as much as food or health services and in fact have been so for much longer.
These services (police, judges) are payed for by some and distributed to all.
Why are some coerced into paying for the services that others take?
Why do those who do the taking see fit to yank away from those what those who are yanked from do not wish to give up?
What logical stopping point do those who are comfortable with initiated aggression foresee? So far there has been no limit but public opinion and it is a volatile and fickle limit easily altered.
What are the two most effective ways in which those who initiate aggression preserve public opinion favorable to their initiated aggression? They offer the service of caring for the young and thus over a twelve year period offer a framing of history and the present in which initiated aggression is seen as a legitimate, necessary and even good institution.
Second, those who initiate aggression are careful to share the spoils. As they have done so, and as those dependent on the spoils grow more legion, the public opinion becomes even more stable.
If a voice cries in the wilderness that initiated aggression is wrong, he is treated like he who escaped the cave but re-entered to proclaim the good news to his fellows. Read Plato’s Cave Allegory to find the response to he who has escaped the confines of the cave and returned to share.
If the voice is allowed to speak he will be presented with all kinds of complicated qualifications. “Well, it’s complicated. Initiated aggression is only wrong if…” Do this cave dweller hear himself? He did not say defensive or retaliatory aggression is wrong when… He said initiated aggression is sometimes ok and sought to invest his reasoning power in its justification.
Even if the conversation is not worthwhile, for I do not see the point in investing large amounts of energy in trying to convince he who wants to initiate aggression that it is by definition wrong, I will do some thinking about my former interlocutor’s education or whether he relies on the spoils.