All that is true, but its important to define the comparison. Inequality in access to the court system is better than a perpetual state of violence. The fact that our current system is imperfect does not mean it isn't better than it was.
That being said, I find Nassim Taleb's criticism of Pinker's ideas much more relevant: That you can't know what kind of distribution you're in until it's over. Violence may simply be becoming more fat tailed. The common case is low-violence, but with low probability periods of hyper-violence (e.g. nuclear war). There are decent a priori reasons to think this may be the case, and it's not something Pinker can effectively rule out.
>The fact that our current system is imperfect does not mean it isn't better than it was.
Sure, but that's my point. Pinker makes an argument for "it is better" without actually delving into confounding measures of "better".
>Inequality in access to the court system is better than a perpetual state of violence.
First: If you were systemically dispossessed, you might take chaos over certainty of a negative outcome.
But before we get there, why compare it to 'perpetual' violence? I don't see a basis for that in historical data or arising out of first principles.
Third, lack of access to conflict resolution was a micro example on the citizen to citizen level; it isn't the only potential cause for a reduction in violence. If we look at the citizen to state level, the increasing (accelerating, even!) capability, scope and organization of the state to stamp out dissent seems like a great confounder. Would we argue that a reduction in violence directly caused by the state's mounting ability to cause death or incarceration against dissenters is a good thing and that as violence decreases due to fear increasing that things are 'better'? The same argument applied to interstate conflict very quickly circles back to how catastrophic nuclear and conventional weaponry has become, which is what Taleb's argument is based upon.
> Why compare it to 'perpetual' violence? I don't see a basis for that in historical data or arising out of first principles.
Most of human history has been a state of relatively perpetual violent conflict. Compared to that, modern times are certainly more 'peaceful'. As you rightly point out, that peace may come through state domination, which we may qualitatively assess as good or bad (or perhaps more appropriately, 'worth it' or 'not worth it'). But in general, I think justice is dispensed more fairly than it ever has been at any time in history. People are more fairly represented by their governments. There's less violence, and generally speaking less suffering. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that feudal pre-democratic societies offered better lives to their citizens than modern first world democracies. I certainly wouldn't trade places with them.
>Most of human history has been a state of relatively perpetual violent conflict.
No it hasn't. Even the worst figured in Pinker's own cherry picked data show that's the case.
Next, even if we jump fully onto the Hobbesian boat, conflict resolution and alignment is literally the raison d'etre of the state.
Finally, we can compare judicial effectiveness (albeit somewhat crudely) across societies (and within differential groups/industries )and the delta between them doesn't lead us from 'everlasting peace' to 'perpetual violence' either.
I'm not sure what point you're making. Calling something 'perpetual violence' is fairly relative, I suppose. So we could quibble about that. But the point that society is substantially less violent than it was seems pretty clearly true.
I don't really understand what point you're trying to make about judicial effectiveness either.
Forgive me for needling here, but i'd like to contest
> Inequality in access to the court system is better than a perpetual state of violence
This is only true if being imprisoned for many years is always better than being physically attacked. Obviously there are edge cases since certain types of violence are worse then other types of imprisonment but I bring this up only to say: don't get caught up in what is easy to view instantaneously. Imprisonment, especially in america, can sometimes be far more violent than the crime a person did to get there.
Also, I realize that this is adjacent to the point you're trying to make but it is a shade of a sentiment i see expressed often.
True but I think it's pretty clear that that's not what's going on in most of the world. To be explicit, that does happen. And it happens much more than it should. But it happens quite a bit less than it used to, and that's the important point.
That being said, I find Nassim Taleb's criticism of Pinker's ideas much more relevant: That you can't know what kind of distribution you're in until it's over. Violence may simply be becoming more fat tailed. The common case is low-violence, but with low probability periods of hyper-violence (e.g. nuclear war). There are decent a priori reasons to think this may be the case, and it's not something Pinker can effectively rule out.