What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Force: Exploring the Worldwide Movement Against Habits of Coercion, Bloodshed, and Mayhem
Is the world becoming increasingly violent? In this remarkable study of the history of the use of force, political scientist James Payne shows that this impression is seriously misleading. The historical trend is against the use of physical force. His research covers dozens of coercive practices, from human sacrifice, war, and genocide to slavery, taxation, and capital punishment. Payne explains how the trend against force underlies political and economic changes. The development of democratic institutions requires that political leaders put violent practices like murder and revolution behind. For this reason, democracy cannot be sustained in cultures with a strong emphasis on force. Economic development also depends on a decline in violence. Markets cannot function and industry cannot thrive until civil war, mob violence, and military seizure abate. With its broad scope and vigorous writing, this exciting book offers a new perspective for interpreting the past--and for understanding the future.
Paperback
First published August 17, 2004
111 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 8, 2020
2012 - Very important thesis. Good historical analysis and examples. Precursor to Stephen Pinker's book and popularity on the subject.
Surprising thesis that the use of force in society has gone down a huge amount over the last several centuries. The documentation and logic are powerful.
Will make one think very hard about the thesis and how it has come about and why people seem to deny it all the time.
2020-07-07 Updated and expanded.
Surprising thesis that the use of force in society has gone down a huge amount over the last several centuries. The documentation and logic are powerful.
Will make one think very hard about the thesis and how it has come about and why people seem to deny it all the time.
2020-07-07 Updated and expanded.
April 1, 2008
far from perfect, but it's got tons of great factoids, and basically all his conclusions are good. the weak link is the argumentation.
the author is a pure libertarian - no taxes, no regulation, no coercion of any kind, ever. one should never use force, ever, unless the other party has initiated the use of force.
probably the most interesting idea is that you CANNOT implement the next step in the (inevitable) path to a libertarian society until the masses are ready and willing. many libertarians seem to take the line "oh, everyone is a libertarian at heart, but the ruling elite bastards use their power to impose all these laws on society. flip a switch, make all govt go poof!, and things would instantaneously be great." but not this guy. he claims that on the contrary, most of the coercive laws and their level of enforcement at any point in history are in fact a pretty good reflection of the desires of the masses. import tarrifs are imposed because of greedy, inefficient farmers and producers. the war on drugs is waged because it is popular with voters. if drugs were legalized, violent mobs would take to the streets and impose their moral code extra-legally.
so if you can't force freedom on greedy, vicious joe sixpack, what is a libertarian to do? well, lead by example. demonstrate the virtues of letting people choose. for example, don't bother trying to tear down the public school system. it's awful, but you'll never convince the people with words. start private schools. demonstrate that better education is possible without any use of taxes whatsoever. compete, don't fight.
i think certain readers will have a knee-jerk reaction to his criticism of islam and the middle east generally, as being a few centuries behind the west culturally. but the facts are pretty stark, really. for example, saudi arabia didn't outlaw slavery until 1962. 1962. slavery. 1962. wow.
but really, the point is not that the west is good and the rest is bad. the point is that the west is bad and the rest is even worse, but even so, we're much better off today than our ancestors were. people make ludicrous statements about how the 20th century was "the most violent century in history", which even the slightest scrutiny shows to be nonsense. the number of people killed by other people may have been about the same as the 19th century, but that means that the proportion of the population that died at the hands of others was a small fraction, compared with the past. in ancient warfare, massacres and genocide were simply a matter of course. he has lots of great references to the horrific campaigns of the hebrews chronicled (approvingly!) in the old testament.
along with the sketchy arguments here and there, the prose is not that great. kind of reminded me of a preachy tenth-grade history teacher. when he had facts, he really used them well. but sometimes all he had were adjectives (the word "deplorable" is probably used 50 times, which is, yes i'll say it, rather deplorable writing). if the book were half as long, it could have been twice as good.
the author is a pure libertarian - no taxes, no regulation, no coercion of any kind, ever. one should never use force, ever, unless the other party has initiated the use of force.
probably the most interesting idea is that you CANNOT implement the next step in the (inevitable) path to a libertarian society until the masses are ready and willing. many libertarians seem to take the line "oh, everyone is a libertarian at heart, but the ruling elite bastards use their power to impose all these laws on society. flip a switch, make all govt go poof!, and things would instantaneously be great." but not this guy. he claims that on the contrary, most of the coercive laws and their level of enforcement at any point in history are in fact a pretty good reflection of the desires of the masses. import tarrifs are imposed because of greedy, inefficient farmers and producers. the war on drugs is waged because it is popular with voters. if drugs were legalized, violent mobs would take to the streets and impose their moral code extra-legally.
so if you can't force freedom on greedy, vicious joe sixpack, what is a libertarian to do? well, lead by example. demonstrate the virtues of letting people choose. for example, don't bother trying to tear down the public school system. it's awful, but you'll never convince the people with words. start private schools. demonstrate that better education is possible without any use of taxes whatsoever. compete, don't fight.
i think certain readers will have a knee-jerk reaction to his criticism of islam and the middle east generally, as being a few centuries behind the west culturally. but the facts are pretty stark, really. for example, saudi arabia didn't outlaw slavery until 1962. 1962. slavery. 1962. wow.
but really, the point is not that the west is good and the rest is bad. the point is that the west is bad and the rest is even worse, but even so, we're much better off today than our ancestors were. people make ludicrous statements about how the 20th century was "the most violent century in history", which even the slightest scrutiny shows to be nonsense. the number of people killed by other people may have been about the same as the 19th century, but that means that the proportion of the population that died at the hands of others was a small fraction, compared with the past. in ancient warfare, massacres and genocide were simply a matter of course. he has lots of great references to the horrific campaigns of the hebrews chronicled (approvingly!) in the old testament.
along with the sketchy arguments here and there, the prose is not that great. kind of reminded me of a preachy tenth-grade history teacher. when he had facts, he really used them well. but sometimes all he had were adjectives (the word "deplorable" is probably used 50 times, which is, yes i'll say it, rather deplorable writing). if the book were half as long, it could have been twice as good.
March 19, 2020
Payne's survey of the history of force challenges the reader to think differently about a common assumption - that humans today live in a violent, force-ridden world. Payne argues that is a false perception fed by media blitzes of violence and our decreasing tolerance over time for what - in the course of history - is an increasingly less force-oriented world.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews