> the right tool

Keep in mind this needs to be judged separately in the legal, practical and moral dimension. For example a state might determine that a person _legally_ deserves to spend 10 years in prison. But the same state will attack you in turn if you abduct that person and hold them for 10 years in similar conditions to prison because _practically_, it weakens the state's monopoly on violence, even if _morally_ that action can be justified (i.e. because if a punishment is just there is no moral reason why it should matter who carries it out).

> often ... usually (always?)

I think the crux lies in how we quantify this. If you live in a western democracy, almost all of the violence you come into contact with or hear about is in fact used by bad individuals (thiefs, gang members, drunks, etc.) or the mentally ill. But even then you have the right (moral and usually legal) to defend yourself.

If you live in other places, that violence might more often be used be institutions (such as states or religions) and might not be materialized (it is potential/threatened/implied). E.g. what happens to a muslim woman who refuses to cover her face - the violence usually never happens because she knows it would and therefore doesn't break the rule. It is still violence used to achieve a goal though and she has the same (moral but usually not legal) right to defend herself - even if any practical defense is beyond her ability to do so because the aggressors are too numerous and dispersed.

I would argue that billions of people live in countries where violence is used against them every day because it is a threat which for example stops them from freely accessing information.

In that regard you're right that it is usually used by bad people. But it says nothing about its morality. The way I see it, violence being used by bad people is a stable equilibrium but it can be used by good people during a transition to a different stable state. It is usually not used by good people in a prolonged because materialized violence tends to reduce the number of people on both sides and cannot be sustained forever.

I don't believe that punishment can be just, and ergo I don't see a moral axis on which to judge violent actions for this purpose. I might concede the use of threatened violence as a means of control, but I don't see any pragmatic way to accomplish this without at least occasional actual punishment so it's a bit non sequiter.

It's likely our views are divergent enough that we wont come to a consensus on this, but I appreciate the nuanced discourse!

> I don't believe that punishment can be just

I've encountered such opinions before but never cared to engage with them since they seem utterly alien to me. Can you give me a summary of your opinions or links to some materials?

There are multiple goals to a punishment - e.g.:

- Deterrence - Protection of others / prevention of re-offense - Removal of aggressor from community to minimize further trauma for the victim by having to interact with him - Restitution - Retribution - Vindication - Removing any gains from the offense from the aggressor - Further disadvantaging of the aggressor to make up for `expected_gains * probability_of_getting_caught` - Further disadvantaging of the aggressor to put negative evolutionary pressure on such behavior - Separation of the aggressor from others to prevent him from normalizing / spreading his behavior

These few are just off the top of my head, not all apply to all offenses, and not everyone will agree all of these are desired by their favorite society. But how do you achieve any, let along most, of them without punishment?