You see Korea as orderly because you fail to designate the oppression and violence that hangs over everybody’s heads and the inherent self-contradiction of statist ideology as a violation of order. The “order” you speak off is merely a cover for the often unspoken and avoided recognition of endless conflict and contradiction, between self and the abstract “state” and the impossibility of “public property”, “common good” and other oxymorons.

Democratic societies merely allow the frustrations that come off these contradictions to come to the surface more often, but they usually come in form of attacks on the effects of these contradictions rather than contradictions themselves.

Your “violence leads to less violence” is a contradiction itself.

So there is the argument for why I call it chaos. Legitimization of violence as moral poses that one is not moral to choose for himself when somebody else already chose for him, yet you cannot exist as anything else but your self. Violence therefore immediately induces a contradiction.

You apparently cannot understand the concept of emergent order, which explains why you would call a free market as the ultimate form of chaos. Everything in nature provides an evidence of emergent and evolved order yet here you are, yet again, arguing how order must be imposed top down. Reality refutes you, nature refutes you. And I pose you to be an immoral person if you believe that it is right for you to coerce me into accepting your own values and choices.

Do not post to this blog again. Do not email me. Get out of my life. You have neither the obligation nor capacity to “correct” what I say nor convince me. I will never abide to someone who wishes that I accept being violated as a good thing.

Goodbye.

If chaos is caused by violence…

Is it? Or is violence caused by chaos? Or is the relationship between the two more complex than that? Would you consider N-Korea (as an extreme example of a communist dictatorship) a country in chaos? It certainly isn’t a good place to be, but as far as I know it is very orderly. It is also difficult to imagine a more repressive government.

then it follows that there is more chaos when there is violence legitimized through government than it would be if it wasn’t so

No, that doesn’t follow, it is possible that government-legitimized violence leads to a smaller total amount of violence.

Never mind that the “if” part of this “if-then” doesn’t hold.

Order therefore emerges when there is no violent imposition.

Ignoring you’re basing this on the false reasoning before it, you at least got this half right. In absence of actual physical violence (that is, not counting threats), order may emerge.

Free market is the ultimate form of order.

That statement is simply bizarre. The free market is the ultimate form of chaos. Sometimes it’s ultimate constructive chaos, and at other times it’s destructive chaos (but I wouldn’t call it ultimate destructive chaos).

Count the number of brands for any product in a free (or as free as it gets in this world) market (choices, choices, choices), and do the same thing for the same product (if they have it at all…) in a communist country (one brand for normal people, and one for government officials). You get the idea.

Order isn’t necessarily a good thing, and chaos isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But calling things “chaos” without a proper argument about why they would be chaos (and why they would be BAD chaos) is a popular propaganda technique. It’s a shame to see you use it.