Re: Peace

"Ah! but crime and corruption are a rational response to conditions of material deprivation and inequality without opportunities for rising standards of living or upward class mobility."

True, with the key words being "without opportunities for rising standards of living or upward class mobility."

As long as people have better prospects of improving their lot through peaceful means than through violence, the vast majority of people will be peaceful.

Even when peaceful means are sufficient to hold one's own, most people will remain peaceful.

However, when it becomes clear that peaceful means are not sufficient, and never will be sufficient (for example, if it becomes clear that those in power have been using their position to make it difficult or impossible for those outside established circles to be economically successful, such as by denying permits, rigging occupational licensing to be difficult to obtain, demanding excessive paperwork, or otherwise impairing peaceful competition), then violence can be a rational response to conditions.

It is notable that one of the most common causes of war, historically, has been restrictions on trade. Even most "religious" wars have tended to coincide with reactions to restrictions on trade. In any good trade, both parties received greater value (to them) than what they gave away - and so both parties prefer to have trading partners that they can trade with to their mutual advantage. Remove the possibility of trade, however, or make the cost of trade too high to be useful, and suddenly the utility of peace evaporates.