Customer Reviews

A History of Force: Exploring the Worldwide Movement Against Habits of Coercion, Bloodshed, and Mayhem

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This brilliant book convincingly shows that, contrary to the opinion of most educated people, violence has steadily declined over the centuries and millennia. The practical relevance of this finding is obvious: If we could identify the causes, maybe we could bottle them and enjoy even further reductions. And it raises key questions about our species and how it responds to different environments with aggression or tolerance. The only flaws of this book are its essentially anarchist politics (which would seem to be refuted by the outbreaks of violence whenever government breaks down) and the fact that the author chose to self-publish and hence forgo the publicity and distribution that this important and engrossing book deserves.

Wow! I read this and learned a lot. Payne argues that, looking at all of history, humans have become less and less inclined to use force. He surveys all of history and cites many facts to buttress his argument. The degree of violence in the world today is exaggerated, he argues convincingly. The media and others tend to distort the true amount of violence. In fact, we live in very peaceful times, for the most part. Read this book and you may become convinced. He examines trends in plundering neighboring tribes, committing genocide, murder, and even taxation, all of which are uses of force. The sweep of this book is incredible. The style of this book makes it a pleasure to read, without the usual academic mumbo jumbo that history or political science books too often have. Even if you don't agree with the author's conclusion, reading this will give you some food for thought.

The author claims, in several places, that other researchers selectly choose their historical data to buttress their arguments. He does the same.

Typical of Left Libertarians (but not just them), he modifies definitions of terms which he then proceeds to prove in his arguments and marshalling of (selective) facts. When that is not sufficient, he simply skips over any data that might contradict his (redefined) term.

Mr. Payne asserts that a debtor who fails to repay has not initiated the use of force, but the court that orders the seizure of his assets has. Such a tendentious line of reasoning betrays his flawed understanding of both the role of courts and the legal definition of failure to fulfill a contract.

He shows his true colors when he dismisses the murder of Jews in World War II as an "atrocity", because the word "genocide" was not coined until 1944. To be sure, he mentions no statistics for the dead of, and caused by, Germany, and the Soviet Union up to his cutoff point of 1950 and, more glaringly, China and Cambodia after that. Statistics and data can be so troubling.

He defines terrorism so as to include the the Irgun in Mandatory Palestine, but not the Paelstinian terror groups in the years immediately preceding the publication of book. Apparently, he likes his Toynbee, whereby fossils don't count, especially in his equations.

A true Left Libertarian read, unfortunately.