You keep reframing the arguments with no reference to the market. Since one of Peter's clearest assertions (if not his only one) was that the free market is the cause of structural violence, and Stefan rebutted that claim, with nothing but a curt dismissal of irrelevance by Peter, I'm not sure how you can claim Stefan "failed to address PJ's point".
Let's be clear. Peter blamed the free market explicitly for the ills of society. He believes the state sprang from the market, but offered no evidence or theory to back that up other than some vague game theory references. Let's say he's right, though. His solution is to get rid of the market. This is akin to an optometrist saying, "You're near-sighted. We'll have to take your eyes out." A real solution wouldn't come at the expense of the entire system, but address the flaw directly. Peter's apparent position is that this cannot be done; violence cannot be addressed separately from the market.
Also, let's say his resource allocation system is successful in eliminating the market. Then what? Does he claim that game theory has been eliminated as well? If gaming the market caused the state, what will result from the gaming of this new system? Does he believe that his system results in humans being nice to one another for the rest of time?
By the way, "structural violence" is not a well-developed concept. It's been around 40-some years. It is distinct from direct, physical violence, and boils down to a renaming of "social injustice". Basically, if you don't like some aspect of society, and it manifests in some kind of harm, it can be lumped under the umbrella of structural violence. Rap music makes me want to punch myself in the face, therefore rap music is structural violence. It's subjectivity takes away much of its usefulness.
