Is the State inevitable?

[Paul_Atreides]

First of all, hello to everyone. I'm glad to be a member of this community.

 

I like to define myself as an anthropological libertarian, and by that I mean that the principles of libertarianism have been intuitive and absolutely inescapable to me since I was a child. I remember once going for a walk with my mother as a small kid. It was getting close to 20:00, which is the time when all shops close in Spain. I asked her how come all businesses decided to close exactly at 20:00, to which she replied that they had no choice, that it was what the law dictated. I remember feeling shocked and furious at this new information. To this day I do not understand how anyone can possibly defend the morality of telling someone what to do with their property. 

 

I suspect, though, that the State, as an institution, is absolutely inevitable, which does not mean that we must view it as benign. We libertarians recognize the predatory nature of the State. That's the main thing that separates us from classical liberals, who sometimes have a rather naively positive view of the State, or socialists, whose understanding of the State verges on the mythical and the religious. 

 

The State is appropriation and force. Certain groups or bands of people settle on a given territory and declare that it is theirs. The examples in History are endless. We have the case of France, which is called France and not Gaul because it was conquered at some point by a Germanic tribe known as the Franks. The Franks took the reigns of a set of territories which had absolutely nothing to do with them linguistically or racially. Why? Because they could. They had the force to do it. German tribes also established the kingdom of Hispania after the collapse of the Roman Empire, and in the year 711 they were overthrown by the Muslims. The Muslims occupied the positions of power and decided that from now on Spain was their property. As in the case of France under the Franks, the Moors were elites sitting on a heavily Romanized population that had very little to do with them.

 

Having said this, the pursuit of a stateless society seems to me like the pursuit of a society where there is no force and no appropriation. Is this even possible?

 

Let us imagine an atomized society of free individuals who act in cooperation with each other. The order uniting this society is a distributed kind of order. Their is no coordinator. Like the ants, each individual possesses a set of principles of behavior, and it is from the large-scale combination of these principles that this peaceful society arises. 

 

Let us imagine now that a foreign power in the form of a State threatens to take over that land and impose its authority on it. What can those individuals do? Nothing. If the individuals stay where they are, the State will triumph. The foreign power will engulf them and the once free and peaceful society will have to live under the rule of Law (Law implies State and State implies Law, let's never forget about this!). 

 

But what if the individuals unite? Let's say they form an army. They also create a council where they will make important decisions on the allocation of resources. They will create a police which will persecute collaborationists and fifth-columnists, because it is perfectly possible that there exist individuals within that free society who favor the interests of the foreign State. Some laws will have to be passed, that's for sure. But how to finance all this? Most members of this free society are happy to give their money to pay for the new army and the police, but everybody has their own idea about how much money is enough. Some citizens are aggravated that they are giving a lot and others, nothing. Maybe, just maybe, this council decides every citizen will have to contribute with some amount of money at least. 

 

Finally, the citizens defeat the foreign State... But ironies of life, now they have created another State! 

 

The State is like one of those whirlpools that suck everything. No matter how fast you swim in the opposite direction, it always drags you toward itself. If the above mentioned free society does not enforce the principles of statelessness, then subsets of the population will ally and form a State. If, however, those principles are enforced through law and police, a State will be born. 

 

As long as there are Humans, there will be force and appropriation, and what is the State but a glorified version of these base tendencies of Humans? 

 

Should we attempt to minimize the State rather than abolish it? 

[dsayers]

Should we attempt to minimize the State rather than abolish it? 

Do you only wish to dial back any illness that you have?

 

First, historical examples aren't terribly useful because the fact that it's always been that way does not mean it always will/have to be that way. In fact, I think there's been no better time for this kind of push back. Economies are falling all over the world. It's clear to many that institutionalized violence has failed us. Secondly, I think you present a false dichotomy when you say that people have to form a State to repel a State.

 

The State does not exist in nature, so it isn't even eligible for a descriptor such as "inevitable." We are up against enormous momentum from the past, but this doesn't mean we cannot slow it down or stop it with enough push back.

[MaceyUK]

Stef talks about this in an early podcast. A DRO or group of DROs could invest in a nuclear weapon and make it clear that this would be used against any invading force. It could be paid for by anyone who contributes to a DRO, in effect everyone who wishes to partake in society.

[Des]

 Their is no coordinator.

There is a co-ordinator, it is called insurance. Insurance is a more recent innovation than government, and insurance is the innovation which makes government obsolete. Alternately put, government was a primitive insurance system (with huge pitfalls).

 

You don't want an invading force taking your piece of real estate? Insure against that.

[Paul_Atreides]

Do you only wish to dial back any illness that you have?

 

First, historical examples aren't terribly useful because the fact that it's always been that way does not mean it always will/have to be that way. In fact, I think there's been no better time for this kind of push back. Economies are falling all over the world. It's clear to many that institutionalized violence has failed us. Secondly, I think you present a false dichotomy when you say that people have to form a State to repel a State.

 

The State does not exist in nature, so it isn't even eligible for a descriptor such as "inevitable." We are up against enormous momentum from the past, but this doesn't mean we cannot slow it down or stop it with enough push back.

 

Well, historical examples are useful in as much as they show us how humans tend to operate. Also, if we want to figure out the origin of the State, where else are we going to look into if not history? This is not an original theory of mine. The origin of the State is appropriation and predation. Groups of humans appropriate some territory and tell other groups of humans that, from now on, said territory is theirs. 

 

Actually, that sounds familiar. You can already find forms of proto-States among the higher apes. Bands of chimps appropriate parts of the forest, and you better not know what they do to intruders. In some cases (I had to say it, why not) they mutilate the genitals of breaching chimps... and then leave them alive. 

 

So, once you understand that the State is just a sophisticated, glorified form of these rudimentary proto-States that you can find among the great apes, or, at least, that the biological foundation of the chimps' proto-States and our States is one and the same, how can we possibly aspire to avoid the State? 

 

If the State is an inevitable result of the combination of certain territorial and predatory human instincts + a swollen frontal lobe, how can you possibly think that you can avoid the State? This is an ideal for a species different from ours.

 

Even if a subset of humans managed to operate without a State, that is, if they managed to form an extended order where there was no centralized power, how could they ensure that humans OUTSIDE their stateless society would also share their principles / instincts? As said, they would be absolutely defenseless against a powerful State that formed in a different part of the world. And if they organized to defend themselves against that State, then it would have to be through the creation of a State. If a society organizes to defend a territory against foreign powers, how do you call that but a State? 

 

You cannot avoid the State insofar as you can't change the human species into something it's not. 

[Kikker]

There is a co-ordinator, it is called insurance. Insurance is a more recent innovation than government, and insurance is the innovation which makes government obsolete. Alternately put, government was a primitive insurance system (with huge pitfalls).

 

You don't want an invading force taking your piece of real estate? Insure against that.

So what prevents an militarized insurance company from aggressively blackmailing people to pay contributions? You would need to militarize yourself or you would insure a second time against that insurance company. Logically there is also nothing to prevent the second company to aggressively blackmail people for contributions. You would need to militarize yourself against that second insurance or take a third insurance to insure against the insurance against insurance. It's a never ending cycle.

[Paul_Atreides]

So what prevents an militarized insurance company from aggressively blackmailing people to pay contributions? You would need to militarize yourself or you would insure a second time against that insurance company. Logically there is also nothing to prevent the second company to aggressively blackmail people for contributions. You would need to militarize yourself against that second insurance or take a third insurance to insure against the insurance against insurance. It's a never ending cycle.

 

Exactly. Wanting to abolish the State equals wanting to abolish power. And power and the pursuit of power are inherent parts of Human nature. 

 

Knowing this, our pursuit as libertarians should be to create States where measures are implemented to restrict the power of the State. But how? Ahhh... Stefan put it very well in his video "The Story of your Enslavement"... The State (the people that live off it, the Parasites) will do everything in its hand to ensure it survives...

 

I am a pessimist. 

[dsayers]

how can we possibly aspire to avoid the State? 

How do YOU achieve your goals without the use of violence? Also, apes are not reasonable, so you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

You cannot avoid the State insofar as you can't change the human species into something it's not. 

You should have led with this instead of pretending to be curious and/or looking for a discussion. Only now is it revealed you're only looking for those who will agree with you.

[Paul_Atreides]

Well, commerce, trade, voluntary contracts, rest on the threat of violence. Now, that does NOT mean that commerce or voluntary contracts are violent. They are, in fact, the opposite of violence. But for these non-violent interactions to take place, they need to happen within a framework of rules which everyone must follow. 

 

And I'm not even talking about the crazy regulations that modern States have created, I'm talking about the most basic, minimal infrastructure of laws necessary to compel individuals to respect the freedoms of other individuals and to honor their part of the contracts they have voluntarily signed. 

 

In other words, there needs to be a system of well-known rules so individuals will be able to operate in a climate of trust, and they can rest assured that other individuals' temptations to unilaterally break a contract will be corrected by such rules. 

 

It is true that very often the incentives to honor your side of a contract are very high. Let's imagine a Viking town that trades with with some Byzantine village. The Vikings arrive at the port of the Byzantine village and notice they outnumber their trading partners, and are stronger and better prepared to fight. So they might feel tempted to slaughter everybody and take all the goods for free. They don't do it, however, because they expect to continue their commercial relationship for much longer. They defer gratification. Being peaceful is advantageous in the long run.

 

There are many other situations, however, where individuals might find that keeping their side of the deal is clearly disadvantageous, either because it's objectively disadvantageous or because they're not smart enough to understand it. In such cases, bad things can happen in the absence of a predictable system of rules. 

 

About the last thing you said, yes, I am curious but at the same time I have my own opinions. I am open to anyone proving I am wrong. 

 

I am a staunch libertarian (believe me, I have had big discussions with friends in my country, Spain, and some mockingly call me the 'anarchocapitalist'), but as of late I have been brooding about this issue and reading different theories, and I am having serious difficulties just wrapping my head around how a stateless society could be achieved. I am a computer science guy and in my field it's all about implementation and feasibility. I stand with the majority of libertarians, who defend a minimal State whose basic tasks will be to prevent individuals from initiating force against other individuals and from not respecting the contracts they have agreed upon. However, notice that these rules, however minimal, can only be enforced... through the threat of the initiation of force. 

[NocPat]

So what prevents an militarized insurance company from aggressively blackmailing people to pay contributions? You would need to militarize yourself or you would insure a second time against that insurance company. Logically there is also nothing to prevent the second company to aggressively blackmail people for contributions. You would need to militarize yourself against that second insurance or take a third insurance to insure against the insurance against insurance. It's a never ending cycle.

The cycle of violence ends when everyone involved in the violence decides to stop being violent.

 

Nothing prevents a person or a militarized insurance company from engaging in violence. Optimally, in a no-government society, the option of violence will be so unprofitable and stupid compared to peaceful cooperation, that no one would resort to violence.

 

I have the same fear, but I think I only have the fear of a DRO becoming a new government because current society rewards violence more than it rewards peace.

[dsayers]

The only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself.

[Kikker]

The cycle of violence ends when everyone involved in the violence decides to stop being violent.

 

Nothing prevents a person or a militarized insurance company from engaging in violence. Optimally, in a no-government society, the option of violence will be so unprofitable and stupid compared to peaceful cooperation, that no one would resort to violence.

 

I have the same fear, but I think I only have the fear of a DRO becoming a new government because current society rewards violence more than it rewards peace.

Isn't the whole argument against government that it is able to coerce? Why isn't that the case with insurance companies? Would you have no problem with government if it was still able to coerce but didn't?

 

I may have run into a definition problem there if you think coercion is an inherit trait of government.

[Worlok]

Isn't the whole argument against government that it is able to coerce? Why isn't that the case with insurance companies? Would you have no problem with government if it was still able to coerce but didn't?

 

I may have run into a definition problem there if you think coercion is an inherit trait of government.

 

The argument against government is that it coerces via force and that it is not voluntary. I can't personally say that making threats to get what you want is immoral. The act is what is immoral. 

 

A government that doesn't use force has no power. It would simply be somebody proposing an idea and everybody agreeing to go along with it. This would technically require all members of a group to be particularly intelligent to all agree to an idea and for the ideas to all be good to begin with. Either 1, everybody agrees because all "government" propositions are thoroughly correct and perfect (utopia), 2, some people agree and those that don't can do whatever they choose instead (ancap), or 3, there are plenty of stupid people that decide that you can go eat a dick and they start a government that will and does use force to control you. The first scenario is make believe. The second scenario requires that all members have a minimum level of intelligence (105+) imo, anyway. The third scenario is what seems to be every form of government ever. Your inquiry only leads to two possibilities, government using force and lack of government.

 

Unless enforced by government, insurance contracts are voluntary. In a free society, supposing an insurance company violates a contract and uses force, you can defend yourself. Said insurance company would lose most, if not all business after being known to break contract and come after you like the mob. You cannot defend yourself against a government and if the government breaks contract and uses force, either everybody complies or everybody becomes property of the government power.

 

government is force by definition, government is not voluntary, insurance contracts are voluntary and at no point require violence.

[dsayers]

I can't personally say that making threats to get what you want is immoral. The act is what is immoral. 

Credible threats are acts.

[Worlok]

Credible threats are acts.

 

sans physical evidence, admission and character witness, determining "credibility" is to determine a thought crime. One thing is one thing and another is another, but is there mens rea? Saying or writing words are acts. What I was referring to was not the act of making a threat but acting out said threat.

[dsayers]

sans physical evidence

How do you know? In the day and age of smartphones, how can you be so sure that a credible threat is necessarily undocumented?

 

determining "credibility" is to determine a thought crime.

Other way around. If I say to you right now that I'm going to break your legs if you don't give me your wallet, it's meaningless. If you were unarmed and I was standing a couple feet away from you with a baseball bat in hand, that would not be a "thought crime." Not that criminality is what we're talking about since commands backed by threats of violence are arbitrary. In reality, I have wronged you once I have violated your property rights, which a credible threat does by introducing coercion into what would otherwise be a choice by you whether or not to give me something.

 

What I was referring to was not the act of making a threat but acting out said threat.

Your words were exclusionary as if the fact that acting on a threat is the only way a threat could be immoral.

[Kikker]

The argument against government is that it coerces via force and that it is not voluntary. I can't personally say that making threats to get what you want is immoral. The act is what is immoral. 

 

A government that doesn't use force has no power. It would simply be somebody proposing an idea and everybody agreeing to go along with it. This would technically require all members of a group to be particularly intelligent to all agree to an idea and for the ideas to all be good to begin with. Either 1, everybody agrees because all "government" propositions are thoroughly correct and perfect (utopia), 2, some people agree and those that don't can do whatever they choose instead (ancap), or 3, there are plenty of stupid people that decide that you can go eat a dick and they start a government that will and does use force to control you. The first scenario is make believe. The second scenario requires that all members have a minimum level of intelligence (105+) imo, anyway. The third scenario is what seems to be every form of government ever. Your inquiry only leads to two possibilities, government using force and lack of government.

 

Unless enforced by government, insurance contracts are voluntary. In a free society, supposing an insurance company violates a contract and uses force, you can defend yourself. Said insurance company would lose most, if not all business after being known to break contract and come after you like the mob. You cannot defend yourself against a government and if the government breaks contract and uses force, either everybody complies or everybody becomes property of the government power.

 

government is force by definition, government is not voluntary, insurance contracts are voluntary and at no point require violence.

If every militarized insurance company can't sustain itself by coercing then a military insurance company which is able to coerce can't exist, since coercion would be suicide. Proof to me why a military insurance company can't sustain itself by blackmail but a government can and you have proven your point.

 

And I may have run into a definition problem there because a government able to coerce but doesn't may be named otherwise because it doesn't use coercion to sustain itself but it also can't be a DRO because a DRO is unable to coerce. So not because a governing entity is always coercing. 

[EuanM]

It's impossible to say, but it is certainly worth making the attempt. 

 

In fact seeing as it's never been done before, it it possible that abolishing the state is in fact impossible, the only way to properly refute this is to actually do it, as was the case with all other examples of major social progress. 

 

However, I don't think you give any compelling reasons for thinking that the state is inevitable.

 

If the above mentioned free society does not enforce the principles of statelessness, then subsets of the population will ally and form a State. If, however, those principles are enforced through law and police, a State will be born. 

 

If by "enforce statelessness" you mean stop people who want to set up a state from doing so then yes, if someone tries to do that you need to stop them. But I don't think there's been any evidence presented that only a state can stop a new state from forming.

 

Anyway, it's misleading to talk about enforcing statelessness, you enforce a state. You don't enforce non coercion, you might defend yourself against coercion, but it's misleading to say that you enforce it.

 

If someone makes and attempt at your life and you take measures to defend yourself are you "enforcing non murder"? Maybe, but it's a bit of an odd way to word it and misleading in so far and it implies that you are the party that is seeking to impose on another(s).

[NotDarkYet]

The state is inevitable the degree to which superstition is inevitable. 

[dsayers]

It's impossible to say

How did you arrive at this conclusion? It seems like intellectual sloth. The only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself. This alone seems to make it not only possible to answer, but with certainty.

[EuanM]

How did you arrive at this conclusion? It seems like intellectual sloth. The only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself. This alone seems to make it not only possible to answer, but with certainty.

 

I arrived at my conclusion simply by observing the fact that its's never been done before. The only day to definitively establish that it's possible is to actually do it. 

 

I agree that the only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself, but I think that it's a leap to conclude from that that the end of the state is possible to answer with certainty, it only means that it is possible to say with certainty that the end of the state would be desirable, not possible.

 

I am certain that the end of the state is indeed desirable and also that it is possible, I'm just not 100% certain it's possible yet. 

[dsayers]

The titular question wan't about ending the State or whether such a thing is possible. The question was is it inevitable. They're completely different because if the State was inevitable, it wouldn't matter if we could end the State since we'd just end back up with one as it is inevitable.

 

For it to be inevitable, it would have to be deterministic, autonomic, or necessary. Since you accept that violence is the only thing that cannot be achieved without violence, this means all things are achievable without violence. If all things are achievable without violence, then violence is certainly not inevitable.

 

By the by, the fact that only violence cannot be achieved without violence, this also answers the question of whether ending Santa Claus is possible. Phrased as such to reveal the ways in which "ending the State" erroneously presupposes its validity. Don't let them enslave you with their terminology

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

It's the initiation of force we're concerned with, not force in general. Your post doesn't make that clear distinction.

[Worlok]

Aaarrrghghh! I hate long posts requiring long responses. Can't we just make some sort of psychic interface a la blue cat people? Do we braid our hair together?

 

If every militarized insurance company can't sustain itself by coercing then a military insurance company which is able to coerce can't exist, since coercion would be suicide. Proof to me why a military insurance company can't sustain itself by blackmail but a government can and you have proven your point.

 

And I may have run into a definition problem there because a government able to coerce but doesn't may be named otherwise because it doesn't use coercion to sustain itself but it also can't be a DRO because a DRO is unable to coerce. So not because a governing entity is always coercing. 

 

Assuming you mean a general armed force with some sort of sanctioned power to use force and not a government military, you will have contracts with which all parties signed into agreement must follow. If said military force and action is agreed to exist in said contract, then said military may perform any actions to which were agreed in said contract. This is also assuming that you signed said contract not under any sort of duress. In this scenario, if you sign a contract that says that I can stab you in the face with a machete if you don't pay me by noon the next day and if you also fail to pay me by that designated time, I can stab you in the face with a machete.

 

DRO as in behavior reinforcement? I had to google it, suck with acronyms, and this would make sense from context. This occurrence would be capitalism, free trade, basic economics, cost/benefit analysis, etc. It requires no government to occur meaning that while it can be a part of a government, government can not be a part of it. Sort of like if you have a square and a circle with equal distance vertices, the square can fit inside of the circle but not vice versa. People are and will forever continue to be stupid cunts. As per my previous response. The population would realistically have to maintain an average IQ of over 100. Not necessarily overall, but among any specific groups like races or any other type of genetic group. e.g., 90% population of over 100 IQ. You have to be smart enough to control yourself to control yourself, or you will be generally inclined to be controlled and have others controlled for the world to meet your own limited comprehension of reality. (not you you, just any hypothetical person.)

 

 

 

sans physical evidence

How do you know? In the day and age of smartphones, how can you be so sure that a credible threat is necessarily undocumented?

 

determining "credibility" is to determine a thought crime.

Other way around. If I say to you right now that I'm going to break your legs if you don't give me your wallet, it's meaningless. If you were unarmed and I was standing a couple feet away from you with a baseball bat in hand, that would not be a "thought crime." Not that criminality is what we're talking about since commands backed by threats of violence are arbitrary. In reality, I have wronged you once I have violated your property rights, which a credible threat does by introducing coercion into what would otherwise be a choice by you whether or not to give me something.

 

What I was referring to was not the act of making a threat but acting out said threat.

Your words were exclusionary as if the fact that acting on a threat is the only way a threat could be immoral.

 

 

You posited a definitive position and I suggested that your position is not definitive, and it isn't. I said, "sans" physical evidence, meaning that in the case of there being no evidence. Evidence neither has to exist or be known to exist even if it does. I.e., If god exists I don't have to have proof for him to exist. Whether there is proof or not and whether I have it or not does not detract from this hypothetical that he does exist. Absence of evidence, evidence of absence, known unknowns, unknown unknowns. You get the gist.

 

Sans evidence, meaning you don't have a legitimate reason to take me serious, to condemn me on the basis of knowing my intent when you can neither know my intent nor prove any reasonable likelihood is parallel to determining a thought crime. (the difference being that a thought crime is specifically identified as anti-state thoughts as opposed to non-specific anti-law thoughts.) In a common court, your argument would be thrown out on "lack of evidence."

 

Intent and capability of carrying out a threat must be determined. Intent requires evidence (I put forth that there was not evidence in my hypothetical, which all of this is. Hypothetical.) and capability of carrying out a threat must be to some degree reasonable. "I'm going to throw the sun at you so you die" is complete and utter bullshit that could not to any degree of "reason" be considered something that I am capable of regardless of my intent. At best, you'd have me on spouting nonsense on the basis of insanity. At worst, everybody would look at you like you are a moron for actually complaining about such absurdities. You might even get a restraining order against a retarded homeless man that wears tinfoil hats and picks up government frequencies in a chip in his tooth. The poor guy can't really understand that he needed to go to court, so he was detained in a holding cell for a few weeks until your court date. He didn't mind, he got three square meals and a warm bed. Unfortunately, after the restraining order was served, because he was found to not be dangerous, but capable to feed and clothe himself, he was let out back onto the streets. It's not like he had any place else to go. His father had run out on him and his mother when the doctors found he was retarded and his mom, the only person he had to take care of him died in a car accident when she was hit by a drunk driver when he was only 16. But you got him good on that "credible threat." I hope you feel good about yourself.

 

 

Anyway, recognizing that the state is a from of government, I'll say this. Government is spontaneous and inevitable. You'll govern your kids, you might govern your wife, but government is going to happen. However, the state is not spontaneous. The state is intelligent by design and equally, by design, may cease to or simply never exist. As previously expressed, I argue that Pretty much everybody would have to have an IQ around and generally greater than 100 for such a thing to occur... 

[dsayers]

Government is spontaneous and inevitable.

This wasn't the question.

 

Also, you can challenge what constitutes a credible threat all you like. The fact remains that a credible threat is an act, not a "thought crime."

[Worlok]

This wasn't the question.

 

Also, you can challenge what constitutes a credible threat all you like. The fact remains that a credible threat is an act, not a "thought crime."

 

No, it wasn't a question. It was part of an answer. You can tell because there wasn't a question mark at the end of the sentence.

 

What constitutes any crime is that a judge or jury says that it occurred based on evidence. The fact that you can't seem to comprehend is that I never made an argument suggesting or directly said that a threat, whether credible or not is an act. Actively thinking is an act. speaking is an act, more obvious shit, etc.  In this entirely hypothetical discussion, if you do not have evidence that there was intent to make a threat credible, then there was no credibility and thus crime occurred. For you to determine that simply saying a threat makes it a credible threat is to make either saying things a crime or thinking things a crime. 

[neeeel]

If by "enforce statelessness" you mean stop people who want to set up a state from doing so then yes, if someone tries to do that you need to stop them. But I don't think there's been any evidence presented that only a state can stop a new state from forming.

 

 

 

No. In a free society, people would be free to set up a state, and live under it. Obviously, they would have to have their own land, they couldnt just set up anywhere they wanted, and if they started using violence or coercion on people who hadnt agreed to be in their state, then that would be a problem. 

[dsayers]

No, it wasn't a question. It was part of an answer.

An answer to a question that wasn't asked. Which is why I pointed out that that wasn't the question.

 

I never made an argument suggesting or directly said that a threat, whether credible or not is an act.

No kidding. I wouldn't have corrected you by pointing out that a credible threat IS an act if you had said so to begin with.

 

You're still trying to argue what does (not) make a threat credible. Which has no bearing on the fact that if a threat is credible, it IS an act, in stark contrast to your initial claim which I refuted. We're literally talking past each other because you won't just scroll up to try and remember what's actually been said and just repeating yourself until the other person coalesces. Intellectual sloth. Called it.