If Permanent Portfolio existed during the American Revolution what would the 4th branch be

[Kshartle]

But what is there to prevent it from ramping up the actual level to 101? And in practice, governments have so much capacity for violence that the number is probably closer to 1,000 than 101. What prevents it from inflicting this on its people, safe in the knowledge that they are unable to effectively resist since they are only capable of 100?

This is the argument from effects and it fails because the other party can always argue that they can somehow figure out how to structure the government either by law or composition of people to ensure this doesn't happen. That argument is silly but they can always think of other ways to argue it.

My point is that the threat of 1000 is 1000 regardless of how it's employed and regardless.....whether it's 1 or 1000 it's wrong to advocate for it. You don't solve the problem of 100 with 1 or 1000 (this is not a moral or subjective argument but an objective one.)

[Gosso]

So what is the proper way to deal with someone that has done something "wrong"?  I'm also not a big fan of letting someone rot in jail, or killing them.  Maybe we treat them as mentally ill and try to heal them?  Perhaps we can brainwash them into becoming decent human beings?  Or is this still too much force?

We socially ostracize them. This is easy in a village where everyone knows everyone else, and in fact seems to be the natural response if you look at village societies worldwide. In a large and complicated society, it will require the aid of firms that compile information on people's reputations. A side effect of this is the end of anonymity, but we're already hurtling at top speed in that direction anyway, so my thinking is that we might as well get some good out of it if it's coming anyway.

Okay, I'm beginning to see some light.  

So we still have "laws" or acts we consider "bad", and then apply these bad acts to their criminal record.

I agree this would be a deterrent (although we already have criminal records).  But isn't this just another more subtle form of force?  This person will likely be unable to get a job, apartment, or bank loan, and so his life options are severely limited, or at least dependent on the kindness of others.  This will increase his frustration and he'd be more likely to commit additional crimes since his life is already screwed.  What do we do with someone that doesn't care about their reputation anymore (and continues to commit crimes)?  Therapy?  Welfare check?  Excommunication?  Brainwashing?  Lobotomy?  Prison?  Lethal Injection?

I also long for a world where the temptation to commit crimes has all but vanished.  This is something we all should strive for.  But sadly we are a long way away from it.

[Kshartle]

Okay, I'm beginning to see some light.  

So we still have "laws" or acts we consider "bad", and then apply these bad acts to their criminal record.

I agree this would be a deterrent (although we already have criminal records).  But isn't this just another more subtle form of force?  This person will likely be unable to get a job, apartment, or bank loan, and so his life options are severely limited, or at least dependent on the kindness of others.  This will increase his frustration and he'd be more likely to commit additional crimes since his life is already screwed.  What do we do with someone that doesn't care about their reputation anymore?  Therapy?  Welfare check?  Excommunication?  Brainwashing?  Lobotomy?  Prison?  Lethal Injection?

I also long for a world where the temptation to commit crimes has all but vanished.  This is something we all should strive for.  But sadly we are a long way away from it.

When the dominant belief among humans is that the the initiation of force is immoral always and everywhere we will have a whole lot less of it. The market will come up with ways to solve the problems of the rest of it. Cameras on persons and property will prevent people from thinking they can ever get away with any of it. Personal and property protection methods (including weapons) that are cheap and available to everyone will take care of a lot of others.

Other businesses will specialize in solving these problems. It might be counseling, or ostracizing via the mechanisims that PS highlighted.

We can't possibly know what the marketplace of ideas will come up with for the profit of individual business people.

At best we can think of a way to get a faster horse....the invisible hand of the market will come up with a car.

As I say everyday, we don't need to figure out who will pick the cotton after the slaves are freed. That's irrelavent.

[Pointedstick]

Okay, I'm beginning to see some light.  

So we still have "laws" or acts we consider "bad", and then apply these bad acts to their criminal record.

I agree this would be a deterrent (although we already have criminal records).  But isn't this just another more subtle form of force?  This person will likely be unable to get a job, apartment, or bank loan, and so his life options are severely limited, or at least dependent on the kindness of others.  This will increase his frustration and he'd be more likely to commit additional crimes since his life is already screwed.  What do we do with someone that doesn't care about their reputation anymore?  Therapy?  Welfare check?  Excommunication?  Brainwashing?  Lobotomy?  Prison?  Lethal Injection?

I'm not sure I agree that social ostracism is a form of force. If a crazy-looking man comes to my door and asks to be let in and I say no, have I used force of any kind? I don't think so. If he tries to force his way in, then I may, but at that point the vast overwhelming majority of humanity would say that I was justified. If I don't offer someone a job because he is a known psycho, has there been any force? I think not, and I believe my position is a common one. Defining "force" too broadly leads to the absurd conclusion that we constantly exert force on everyone and everything simply by existing and breathing and walking around, which is a depressing, nihilistic position that is actually not very usable or actionable. And, I might add, totally incompatible with the Christian tradition of stewardship.

As for whether this would simply encourage people to be even worse criminals, pastebomb from the book incoming:

Wouldn't this simply encourage potential violent criminals to become actual violent criminals as a result of the knowledge that the required insurance would pay any fees incurred by their criminal acts? It is unlikely. Despite what TV crime dramas portray, most criminals are irrational brutes with poor impulse control who generally do not think in this manner. And for the few sociopaths capable of making such calculations, the black mark of being a rational, cold-blooded murderer would stay on their reputation reports for a very long time and most likely result in effective banishment from society as nobody wanted to have further dealings with them. Additionally, keep in mind that the Private Society is likely to be a heavily-armed society. With no legal restrictions on carrying weapons, a significant percentage of average folks would be carrying concealed pepper sprays, stunguns, or pistols, ready to defend themselves or others from a criminal who goes mad in a Pizza Hut out of frustration that he must pay a $200 deposit to enter or who rationally calculates that he can get away with murder. An irate thug who tried to force his way into a location barred to him would likely meet a hailstorm of bullets.

People who nobody wanted to have contact with would effectively banished. And if they tried to force themselves on people who didn't want them to enter their restaurants, churches, or movie theaters, then they would be forcibly prevented from trespassing, possibly resulting in their death if they were especially violent about it. Nobody would shed a tear.

[Mountaineer]

But what is there to prevent it from ramping up the actual level to 101? And in practice, governments have so much capacity for violence that the number is probably closer to 1,000 than 101. What prevents it from inflicting this on its people, safe in the knowledge that they are unable to effectively resist since they are only capable of 100?

This is the argument from effects and it fails because the other party can always argue that they can somehow figure out how to structure the government either by law or composition of people to ensure this doesn't happen. That argument is silly but they can always think of other ways to argue it.

My point is that the threat of 1000 is 1000 regardless of how it's employed and regardless.....whether it's 1 or 1000 it's wrong to advocate for it. You don't solve the problem of 100 with 1 or 1000 (this is not a moral or subjective argument but an objective one.)

I think I have lost something along the way of this thread.  Perhaps you can help me.

Why is it that this whole discussion about violence and what the government does to maintain control matters?  It seems it is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Who knows?  Why does it matter?  Government is always going to be here, people are always going to be violent.  Can I envision a society without violence?  Yes.  I can also envision solving world hunger or saving the whales, but it "ain't gonna happen!"  Or at least I think the odds of it happening are incredibly small; so small it does  not matter.  This strikes me as a discussion between a physicist (theoretical) and an engineer (practical) - both can be right; it is just that for all practical purposes it is only important that the bridge does not collapse, regardless of how many molecules are distorted in the supporting columns as a truck drives over the bridge.  Make sense?

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

Government is always going to be here, people are always going to be violent.  Can I envision a society without violence?  Yes.  I can also envision solving world hunger or saving the whales, but it "ain't gonna happen!"  ... Mountaineer

Why do you believe this? What is the basis of your belief that we will always have governments and "people" (I assume you don't mean every single person) are always going to be violent?

[Mountaineer]

Government is always going to be here, people are always going to be violent.  Can I envision a society without violence?  Yes.  I can also envision solving world hunger or saving the whales, but it "ain't gonna happen!"  ... Mountaineer

Why do you believe this? What is the basis of your belief that we will always have governments and "people" (I assume you don't mean every single person) are always going to be violent?

Inductive reasoning based upon every known story/account of mankind that I'm aware of from the very beginning to date, either from a creationist view (man being created first with woman being his helper - early government - and the Cain and Abel saga - violence), or an evolutionist view (tribes and the like - early government -  smashed skulls - violence - from eons ago).

Doctrine of original sin.  Scripture.  God says it.

Take your pick.  Either view is the human experience.  And, as I said, I can envision a lot of things that are not going to happen.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

Government is always going to be here, people are always going to be violent.  Can I envision a society without violence?  Yes.  I can also envision solving world hunger or saving the whales, but it "ain't gonna happen!"  ... Mountaineer

Why do you believe this? What is the basis of your belief that we will always have governments and "people" (I assume you don't mean every single person) are always going to be violent?

Inductive reasoning based upon every known story/account of mankind that I'm aware of from the very beginning to date, either from a creationist view (man being created first with woman being his helper - early government - and the Cain and Abel saga - violence), or an evolutionist view (tribes and the like - early government -  smashed skulls - violence - from eons ago).

Doctrine of original sin.  Scripture.  God says it.

Take your pick.  Either view is the human experience.  And, as I said, I can envision a lot of things that are not going to happen.

... Mountaineer

So it's just an appeal to history (Humans have always been violent so therefore they always will be).

You realize that's a false argument right? If a false argument is the only support for a belief then the belief is not rationale. I'm not saying the belief is incorrect....just irrational.

You must have another argument for the belief right?

[Gosso]

PS,

Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.  Personally I'd much rather not live in a society like that.  But maybe I'd be thinking differently if I had grown up in a gun culture.  We aren't so gun crazy in the Great White North.

[dualstow]

PS,

Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.  Personally I'd much rather not live in a society like that.  But maybe I'd be thinking differently if I had grown up in a gun culture.  We aren't so gun crazy in the Great White North.

Ah, but Canadians are as gun crazy as Americans. They just aren't as ... crazy.

[Pointedstick]

PS,

Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.  Personally I'd much rather not live in a society like that.  But maybe I'd be thinking differently if I had grown up in a gun culture.  We aren't so gun crazy in the Great White North.

I didn't grow up in a gun culture at all. My parents are both far left liberal college professors. I wrote anti-gun propaganda for school assignments. I went to Democratic party brainwashing summer camps in Washington D.C. Everything about my upbringing should have made me into a gun hater, and that's exactly what happened.

But then I grew up, and I started thinking for myself. As a mechanically-minded person, I found firearms fascinating from a technical perspective, and from there, I learned about the politics and ethics of the issue, and I discovered that (in my estimation) both the facts and the morals are on the side of those who wish to have the option of defending themselves and their families with a firearm should the situation arise.

You just have to think for yourself rather than adopting the attitudes of people around you--even people you respect. People who are worthy of respect can still be wrong.

[Mountaineer]

Why do you believe this? What is the basis of your belief that we will always have governments and "people" (I assume you don't mean every single person) are always going to be violent?

Inductive reasoning based upon every known story/account of mankind that I'm aware of from the very beginning to date, either from a creationist view (man being created first with woman being his helper - early government - and the Cain and Abel saga - violence), or an evolutionist view (tribes and the like - early government -  smashed skulls - violence - from eons ago).

Doctrine of original sin.  Scripture.  God says it.

Take your pick.  Either view is the human experience.  And, as I said, I can envision a lot of things that are not going to happen.

... Mountaineer

So it's just an appeal to history (Humans have always been violent so therefore they always will be).

You realize that's a false argument right? If a false argument is the only support for a belief then the belief is not rationale. I'm not saying the belief is incorrect....just irrational.

You must have another argument for the belief right?

I "believe" if you really read my answer, you would not have come to the conclusions you did, assuming you are rational.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

PS,

Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.  Personally I'd much rather not live in a society like that.  But maybe I'd be thinking differently if I had grown up in a gun culture.  We aren't so gun crazy in the Great White North.

I didn't grow up in a gun culture at all. My parents are both far left liberal college professors. I wrote anti-gun propaganda for school assignments. I went to Democratic party brainwashing summer camps in Washington D.C. Everything about my upbringing should have made me into a gun hater, and that's exactly what happened.

But then I grew up, and I started thinking for myself. As a mechanically-minded person, I found firearms fascinating from a technical perspective, and from there, I learned about the politics and ethics of the issue, and I discovered that (in my estimation) both the facts and the morals are on the side of those who wish to have the option of defending themselves and their families with a firearm should the situation arise.

You just have to think for yourself rather than adopting the attitudes of people around you--even people you respect. Even people worthy of respect can be wrong.

Very interesting.  There really is hope for mankind.    You seem, somehow, to have broken the mold and actually came to understand that the "tool" (gun) is not the problem, it is the improper use of the tool.  I am appreciating your common sense, truth seeking, and intellect more and more every post I read even though I may not agree with everything you believe. 

... Mountaineer

[Gosso]

PS,

Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.  Personally I'd much rather not live in a society like that.  But maybe I'd be thinking differently if I had grown up in a gun culture.  We aren't so gun crazy in the Great White North.

Ah, but Canadians are as gun crazy as Americans. They just aren't as ... crazy.

I'll take that as a compliment (?).  We release most of our anger through hockey.   When are the Olympics starting!?

PS,

Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.  Personally I'd much rather not live in a society like that.  But maybe I'd be thinking differently if I had grown up in a gun culture.  We aren't so gun crazy in the Great White North.

I didn't grow up in a gun culture at all. My parents are both far left liberal college professors. I wrote anti-gun propaganda for school assignments. I went to Democratic party brainwashing summer camps in Washington D.C. Everything about my upbringing should have made me into a gun hater, and that's exactly what happened.

But then I grew up, and I started thinking for myself. As a mechanically-minded person, I found firearms fascinating from a technical perspective, and from there, I learned about the politics and ethics of the issue, and I discovered that (in my estimation) both the facts and the morals are on the side of those who wish to have the option of defending themselves and their families with a firearm should the situation arise.

You just have to think for yourself rather than adopting the attitudes of people around you--even people you respect. Even people worthy of respect can be wrong.

If the culture moves in that direction then I'll begin to learn about guns.  I just honestly don't care about them.

[Kshartle]

I "believe" if you really read my answer, you would not have come to the conclusions you did, assuming you are rational.

... Mountaineer

I really did read it. I took from it that you believe humans will always be violent and will always have governments because they always have and because God (I assume you mean the Bible and did not hear this directly) says so.

If I missunderstood please tell me. I don't want to missunderstand.

[Kshartle]

If the culture moves in that direction then I'll begin to learn about guns.  I just honestly don't care about them.

They are fun. I have a VZ 58 waiting for pick up at my local dealer. It's actually a very popular Canadian firearm since you guys aren't allowed to have AKs.

[Pointedstick]

Very interesting.  There really is hope for mankind.    You seem, somehow, to have broken the mold and actually came to understand that the "tool" (gun) is not the problem, it is the improper use of the tool.  I am appreciating your common sense, truth seeking, and intellect more and more every post I read even though I may not agree with everything you believe. 

... Mountaineer

Thank you, Mountaineer. The feeling is mutual!

[Mountaineer]

I "believe" if you really read my answer, you would not have come to the conclusions you did, assuming you are rational.

... Mountaineer

I really did read it. I took from it that you believe humans will always be violent and will always have governments because they always have and because God (I assume you mean the Bible and did not hear this directly) says so.

If I missunderstood please tell me. I don't want to missunderstand.

My apologies.  Yes, that is what I said so you did read it.  However, I do not understand why you said my statement is not rational.  It seems to be to be just as rational as saying the earth revolves around the sun because all my studies say so (even though I have not proved it myself).  Very similar to almost everything I learned in grades 1 - 12 and college and education after that.  Very little involved my personal proof.  Are you (at the extreme as you often like to say) saying that most of my education was irrational?

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

I "believe" if you really read my answer, you would not have come to the conclusions you did, assuming you are rational.

... Mountaineer

I really did read it. I took from it that you believe humans will always be violent and will always have governments because they always have and because God (I assume you mean the Bible and did not hear this directly) says so.

If I missunderstood please tell me. I don't want to missunderstand.

My apologies.  Yes, that is what I said so you did read it.  However, I do not understand why you said my statement is not rational.  It seems to be to be just as rational as saying the earth revolves around the sun because all my studies say so (even though I have not proved it myself).  Very similar to almost everything I learned in grades 1 - 12 and college and education after that.  Very little involved my personal proof.  Are you (at the extreme as you often like to say) saying that most of my education was irrational?

... Mountaineer

I'm saying that these arguments for the legitimacy of your belief are not rationale.

For the argument from history....it's as if you're saying the sun will come up tomorrow because it has always come up every 24 hours. This is a fallacious argument and reason for your belief. Yes, the sun will come up tomorrow....but it's definately not because it came up today or any day in the past. If that's your reason for believing it will come up that is irrational because you are basing your belief on a completely fallacious argument. It no different from me saying when I jump up I will come back to Earth because invisible gremlins will push me down. Yes I'm right that I'll come back down to the Earth but it's not because of invisible gremlins...it's because of gravity. The sun doesn't come up every 24 hours because it has everyday in the past......it does so because the Earth never stops rotating on it's axis at basically the exact same speed every year for thousands of years or more.

For the argument that we will always be violent because God wrote it into the Bible...you need to be able to prove that God exists....that he wrote this stuff.....that is capable of ensuring this with certainty and that he always keeps his word. I might be underestimating you.....but I'm confident you aren't in a position to prove all of that....or you would probably be extremely famous. Your argument falls apart when you encounter anyone who either disagrees with you on any of those points or just doesn't beleive God exists.

Supposedly Muslims believe if they die by sacrificing themselves for Allah they get 69 virgins or something. Does that beleif make it so? Does your belief have the power to change reality? Belief alone can't be the justification for belief if you are trying to make a rationale, non-fallacious argument.

[Kshartle]

  Are you (at the extreme as you often like to say) saying that most of my education was irrational?

... Mountaineer

I'm not saying that but I suspect that's the case.

Mine certainly was and that extends into college and grad school.

[Mountaineer]

I really did read it. I took from it that you believe humans will always be violent and will always have governments because they always have and because God (I assume you mean the Bible and did not hear this directly) says so.

If I missunderstood please tell me. I don't want to missunderstand.

My apologies.  Yes, that is what I said so you did read it.  However, I do not understand why you said my statement is not rational.  It seems to be to be just as rational as saying the earth revolves around the sun because all my studies say so (even though I have not proved it myself).  Very similar to almost everything I learned in grades 1 - 12 and college and education after that.  Very little involved my personal proof.  Are you (at the extreme as you often like to say) saying that most of my education was irrational?

... Mountaineer

I'm saying that these arguments for the legitimacy of your belief are not rationale.

For the argument from history....it's as if you're saying the sun will come up tomorrow because it has always come up every 24 hours. This is a fallacious argument and reason for your belief. Yes, the sun will come up tomorrow....but it's definately not because it came up today or any day in the past. If that's your reason for believing it will come up that is irrational because you are basing your belief on a completely fallacious argument. It no different from me saying when I jump up I will come back to Earth because invisible gremlins will push me down. Yes I'm right that I'll come back down to the Earth but it's not because of invisible gremlins...it's because of gravity.

For the argument that we will always be violent because God wrote it into the Bible...you need to be able to prove that God exists....that he wrote this stuff.....that is capable of ensuring this with certainty and that he always keeps his word. I might be underestimating you.....but I'm confident you aren't in a position to prove all of that....or you would probably be extremely famous. Your argument falls apart when you encounter anyone who either disagrees with you on any of those points or just doesn't beleive God exists.

Supposedly Muslims believe if they die by sacrificing themselves for Allah they get 69 virgins or something. Does that beleif make it so? Does your belief have the power to change reality? Belief alone can't be the justification for belief if you are trying to make a rationale, non-fallacious argument.

I think I understand where you are coming from - you need rational proof or logic for anything to be true.  Ok, I get it.

However, for me, as I've said several times before, I believe there are three ways man obtains knowledge: cognitive (reason), experience (e.g. learning to walk) and revelation (you may wish to call that faith or trust or maybe something else).  You seem to discount revelation.  It really does not matter whether or not I can prove there is a God.  If there is, no matter what you rationalize or can't rationalize, He exists (just like gravity as you pointed out).  Just because one cannot prove something at this point in time, does not mean it does not exist.  And, above all, it does not really matter (to me) the process one uses to say that man has always been evil, violent, and has had government - the fact is we are where we are now.  The future is completely unknown so no matter what you or I can prove or feel or think, the real future will be what it will be.  That is why I said a few posts back, this whole discussion about violence and force really does not matter.  We are what we are and wishing for something different, or being idealistic, or 100% rational just does not matter.  My opinion of course.  I'm not asking you to believe it, you are totally free to believe what you want.  Your future will be what it will be, just like mine will be what it will be, regardless of what I think or believe (other that about the promises of God  ).  Perhaps I'm still missing your point - but in summary, my thought of the violence topic is like that of Shakespeare - much ado about nothing.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

I think I understand where you are coming from - you need rational proof or logic for anything to be true.  Ok, I get it.

No, that's not what I said or argued. It's not in any way. 

I don't need rationale proof or logic that blackholes exist for that to be true. They exist or don't exist regardless of my arguments, belief, rationale proof or logic.

However.....if I make the point that they exist and I know why....and that reason is because the gremlin in the magic box on my computer desk told me so (the interwebs writer)....that is a fallacious argument and an irrationale belief.

I thought I made the point in a previous post that an irrationale belief can be correct.

In fact I did. Here's the quote:

You realize that's a false argument right? If a false argument is the only support for a belief then the belief is not rationale. I'm not saying the belief is incorrect....just irrational.  

[Kshartle]

I believe there are three ways man obtains knowledge: cognitive (reason), experience (e.g. learning to walk) and revelation (you may wish to call that faith or trust or maybe something else).  You seem to discount revelation.  It really does not matter whether or not I can prove there is a God.  If there is, no matter what you rationalize or can't rationalize, He exists (just like gravity as you pointed out).  Just because one cannot prove something at this point in time, does not mean it does not exist.  ... Mountaineer

I don't just seem to discount revelation....I outright reject the concept. That doesn't matter though. You are making my same argument when you say "just because one cannot prove something at this point in time, does not mean it does not exist." That's the same principle as "just because you believe something it doesn't make it true". If you are basing your belief on faith or belief.....you might be right....but you are making an irrationale arrgument.

I was wondering if you had a rationale argument for your statement about violence and government...that's all.

[Mountaineer]

I believe there are three ways man obtains knowledge: cognitive (reason), experience (e.g. learning to walk) and revelation (you may wish to call that faith or trust or maybe something else).  You seem to discount revelation.  It really does not matter whether or not I can prove there is a God.  If there is, no matter what you rationalize or can't rationalize, He exists (just like gravity as you pointed out).  Just because one cannot prove something at this point in time, does not mean it does not exist.  ... Mountaineer

I don't just seem to discount revelation....I outright reject the concept. That doesn't matter though. You are making my same argument when you say "just because one cannot prove something at this point in time, does not mean it does not exist." That's the same principle as "just because you believe something it doesn't make it true". If you are basing your belief on faith or belief.....you might be right....but you are making an irrationale arrgument.

I was wondering if you had a rationale argument for your statement about violence and government...that's all.

rational
adjective
1 a rational approach: logical, reasoned, sensible, reasonable, cogent, intelligent, judicious, shrewd, common-sense, commonsensical, sound, prudent; down-to-earth, practical, pragmatic. ANTONYMS illogical.
2 she was not rational at the time of signing: sane, compos mentis, in one's right mind, of sound mind; normal, balanced, grounded, lucid, coherent; informal all there. ANTONYMS insane.
3 humans are rational beings: intelligent, thinking, reasoning; cerebral, logical, analytical; formal ratiocinative.

So, in your opinion, on how many of these meanings for "rational" do my statements fail?  No need to answer, I just think that your definition of rational may not be the same as mine.

Or do  you really mean "rationale"?

The term rationale may refer to:
An explanation of the basis or fundamental reasons for something.
Rationale (clothing), a liturgical vestment worn by clergy, in particular by Roman Catholic Church bishops.


 

[Kshartle]

I meant rational.

It's more accurate for me to say non-fallacious. Do you have a non-fallacious argument for your statements?

ir·ra·tion·al

adjective
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments. 
4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals. 

I might not be using the term correctly when I say your beliefs about the certainty of violence and government are irrational. Then again......maybe I'm using the term correctly.

Regardless......the argument from history or that God said so are certainly fallacious arguments, and if those are your only reason for the beliefs then I think that does in fact make the beliefs irrational (though ultimately they might still be correct/true).