I agree that the formation of polities has caused most wars, but not every war is a result of national politics. If you listen to Osama Bin Laden, you will realize that his Jihad is not specifically against the US or Britain, but against non-Muslims and the west in general. Although Al-Queda has targeted US goverment structures ( the Pentagon and various embassies), it has also attacked explicitly non-goverment targets ( Turkish synagogues, and World Trade Centers). These latter attacks can be interpeted as attacks against Judaism and usury/ other “western” business practices, respectively. In short, its an ideological war instead of a classical war between states.

Contesting the monopoly on violence of the state. Of course you need violence to counter it. For examples, terrorists will generally target specific countries’ people and wealth; they don’t have anything specific against the average civilian except that he represents, and is thus supposedly complicit with the actions of, that specific state. Sometimes people also, obviously, go after their own states, but here I meant war when I said violence.

Obviously, since nobody has seen a stateless world, I can’t claim any authority when speculating about what it would be like

How do you explain this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_non-state_actor

For a more articulate discussion of the distinction between a nation and a state, please read the archetypal work by Randolph Bourne (you haven’t heard of him, most likely, because he died really young):
http://bigeye.com/warstate.htm

You’d still need a government, of course, but you can have government that just solves the collective action problem without also setting up the divisive structure of the state that demands our fealty over our responsibility to others. How would you do this practically? That would be a dissertation.

@@11: I’m glad you’re happy that we have an army. Because if you weren’t, than you’d have to admit the facts that it hires the poor to do the bidding of the rich; that the amount that is spent on the military, globally, in one year, could educate all the children in the world alive today; and that while just war is, I agree, entirely possible, that doesn’t change the fact that war is madness; I don’t think people would want to kill other people unless incited by their states.

For an interesting (albeit incomplete) discussion of the opportunity cost of war, I refer you to Mr. Kristof:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/opinion/29kristof.html?ref=nicholasdkristof

If I’m a tool, at least I’m useful, dear Anon.

No, just a pseudo intellectual tool.

Wtf are you, Ahmadinejad?

I disagree with most policies of the US Army, including the existence of the US Army, and possibly the existence of the US, but I wouldn’t say that US soldiers are mindless, nor pigs (othering and dehumanisation are ridiculous regardless of the ones at whom who they’re directed). Even Tim Wise understands this, and he can be othering as:

“But effectiveness isn’t what matters to them. What matters to them is raging against the machine for the sake of rage itself. Their message is simple: everything sucks, the earth is doomed, all cops are brutal, all soldiers are baby-killers, all people who work for corporations are evil, blah, blah, blah, right on down the line. It’s as if much of the left has become co-dependent with despondency, addicted to its own isolation, and enamored of its moral purity and unwillingness to work with mere liberals. In the name of ideological asceticism, they spurn the hard work of movement building and inspiring others to join the struggle, snicker at those foolish enough to not understand or appreciate their superior philosophical constructs, and then act shocked when their movements and groups accomplish exactly nothing. But honestly, who wants to join a movement filled with people who look down on you as a sucker?”