I vehemently disagree, because we have innumerable examples of non-institutionalized combat that reveal it is institutionalization that creates the bloody battlefield, while warriors counting coups suffices for sovereign individuals contesting.

Oh, that's not what I meant, I thought my elaboration illustrated that. That man is a being who kills other men seems to me to be a historical fact. And the institutionalisation of wars is very old, if you start from the specialisation in ruler castes, warrior castes, priest castes and the peasant and artisan people. Which seems to have more to do with the fact that peoples came together in large numbers in cities. I would therefore relate the institutional aspect to the existence of cities and the early division of labour, on the basis of which people were given a certain status. Hence my reference to Chesterton.

I think that the larger a civilisation settled somewhere and formed a kingdom, the more difficult it is to imagine the ruling caste without intrigues and power struggles, which were not only external but also internal.

When has there ever been peace over a long period of time?

But because man is a creator as well as a destroyer, he mimes this principle of cosmic events, which also include earthly ones (I don't know a better way to put it). Because he has consciousness, he finds conflict, for being conscious of oneself inevitably leads to fears that are irrational. At the same time, consciousness is also responsible for reason and love. These two are in constant conflict and because this is so, there is no end point, there is not the fixed state for peace forever, but a constant struggle for it, a seesaw moving for as long as humanity may exist.

It seems to me that the only protection, the fear of war and the fear of the oppression of the rulers over the ruled, is to take away their fear, of which they seem to be afflicted a thousand times more than the ordinary citizen.
To be a state within the state, it needs the family. The basis of the family is man and woman, the only ones who can create such sovereignty.
I am far too little interested in technology. My skills lie elsewhere. You and I sometimes like to talk past each other, because the feminine and the masculine often complement each other so well precisely because they are so different from each other. Your ideas of freedom in terms of technological application are difficult for me to discuss in detail with you, and I suspect my ideas of it may also be of rather little interest to you.

Ruling seems to fuel fears, to lead to more irrational fears and assumptions than not ruling. Those who rule over the people need a people who can rule themselves, yes, I totally agree. But that is obviously what immatures who want to rule at all costs cannot realise, otherwise they would not be tyrants. Paradox is the constant companion of people.

Just like a teenager who opposes his parents and constantly judges and fights them, rulers are bad parents if they take the immature and life-experienceless child too seriously. A ruler who falls for a people who want everything regulated is led by the false assumption that the people should love him. Whoever falls for it from among the people that everything should be regulated for him will get a despot instead of a ruler.

However, such knowledge and other related knowledge is only gained in the very first state, the family. You can't build up skills how to rule yourself if you never felt and lived being responsible for each other, for the children and for the household.

I want to deliberately insult you and tell you that your remarks seem to me to be megalomaniac in parts and probably mine seem too small and insignificant to you. This eternal dispute between man and woman belongs first of all to their intimate sphere and must be fought out and thus balanced. Otherwise, the matter goes outside and seems to fuel the nonsense of " fight between the sexes".