> Im questioning the value of a solution with the application of force.

Governments use force. By definition. That means you question the value of governments.

I don't. The alternative is warlords, who also use force.

The benefit of a Government, specifically of a mostly democratic one, is I have some say in when and how that force gets used, without myself having to be a warlord.

> A dangerous tool, that requires all sorts of limitations to make sure it is not used abusively.

Absolutely. A Constitution enacting checks and balances, and guaranteeing free speech and a free press, are the best ways I know to limit that power.

> And injecting things into people against their will is pretty high up there.

Sure?

Allowing nuclear testing where it can impact people is also bad. (We did that.)

Allowing the for-profit sale of known carcinogens is also bad. (We do that. See: asbestos, tobacco.)

We've also committed absolute atrocities. [1]

Clearly we need more checks and balances, and a more powerful press.

> It is not the intention of the act alone that decides if its moral or not: the act itself is.

Is the act of murder moral?

I'm pretty sure you would say, "no."

What about when the US sees Germany invading neighboring countries, and killing Jews and gypsies? Is it moral for the US to start murdering German soldiers, in open war?

I'm pretty sure you have to concede, "yes."

Therefore, it is not the act alone. The intention also plays a part.

> I think we have had enough experiences to know that if the government decided what to do with your own body, great tragedies follow.

I'm pretty sure great tragedies will happen regardless, and unfortunately, governments have to make decisions. King Solomon's wisdom over deciding to cut a baby in half comes to mind.

> can you ban drugs and alcohol

I think a far better parallel track of conversation is antibiotics.

If you don't follow the prescribed course of antibiotics, you can breed drug-resistant bacteria. That's a very good argument in favor of limiting access to antibiotics, to people who have consulted with a doctor.

There are countries (India) where antibiotics are much more freely available, and people don't use them properly. They take them for a few days, until they feel better. Breeding dangerous strains.

The argument can be made that governments should stop you from improperly using antibiotics, because it increases the risk to all of us.

> Can you decide on forcefully aborting, or forbidding abortion?

We do decide that. We have to make decisions about how our laws work.

> How people are dressed?

We decide that, too, yes.

> Its not the act of using a hammer on a nail that is in question: its the hammer itself, and the act of nails voting who gets hit next.

Hitler 2.0 comes up. Should we murder his soldiers?

I vote yes. How vote you?

> Why would government enacted violence be any more dignified than individual violence?

"Dignified" is an interesting word choice.

"having or showing a composed or serious manner that is worthy of respect."

The simple answer is that the government composed a law in a respectful manner, and hopefully the officers of the government carried out the law in a respectful manner.

When they don't, we're supposed to hold them to account.

> What change does it make to the morality of a violent act if it was voted on?

Catholics say a phrase, "in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do."

It can be immoral to NOT act.

It would be immoral to not intervene in WW3 with Hitler 2.0.

The way we decide if it's time to intervene is that we vote on how our representative government is run.

[1] : http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story...