I did, but it's not terribly useful. It's mainly a term used for fascists. Merely the fact that one can appreciate the wealth that organized societies make possible does not make one a statist in this sense.


The greater part of these numbers are caused by large upheavals where society and state is pretty much thrown over, and new dictators tries to base their power on quellling dissent on a large scale. That is the work of a weak state, revolutionary militias and the like, not of a well established state. You could not call any of these states welfare societies. If you look at the violence rates when these states are established, you will find that it is lower than in areas with very weak or non-existing states. Dictatorships are awful is many ways, but they tend to have a way with crime and petty violence.

Do not try to pretend I said a large state is always stronger and more secure, I did no such thing. I pointed out that there is a correlation, and it is the opposite of what you alluded to. Societies are complex beasts are there is no single factor that decides these things. Before we can decide on how to decide the amount of violence in a society, we can't even begin to untangle the different factors involved. But that does not mean there is not correlation.

It is true the superpowers of the 20th century has been responsible for much suffering, and most of the smaller ones are actually wars by proxy, such as the massacres of Cambodia which started out as a proxy war to Vietnam. But none of these compare to established states and welfare states, where the rates of violence and suffering is much, much lower.