The ideal is "peaceful interactions are preferable".

How we achieve and sustain the ideal is our challenge as a species, and as individuals.

We don't actually need examples of civilizations that encode peaceful ethics to prove the ideal, because that is to wait for it to have already been achieved in the first place.

Many things were thought impossible, with an absolute lack of examples to back up the opinion.

The four-minute-mile was thought to be impossible. Not only is it possible, many have surpassed it since.

That is how I view peaceful ethics.

Most simply cannot comprehend the abundance that lies beyond, if we could simply stop abusing power to "win" short term games against each other.

You can find all of those properties in each of the groups I mentioned.

Orania has farmers, schools, builders, security, management. They generate all of their power from a solar farm. That's complex specialisation by any reasonable definition.

As for the last question: anyone can do what they like. Ideals are the question of shoulds and oughts. What is "right" and what is "wrong".

Whether or not anyone adheres to the ideals is a question of their fidelity to and belief in the ideal.

Categorically though, you cannot be a pacifist and engage in violence.

The moment you engage in violence you fall out of the pacifist category as a matter of fact.

To that, you would say that Evil was done unto them.

You're conflating idealism and pragmatism.

Whether or not a peaceful civilization could be destroyed doesn't change that it was a moral one.

It's also worth noting that ALL civilizations are subject to destruction, including coercive ones.

To be clear, I'm not saying that it would be wrong for them to have fought. Self defense is legitimate, after all.

I'm only using them as an example that even a totally Pacifist group (as in, wont even defend themselves with aggression), can produce a coherent and functional social group that self governs.

If that's the case, then the moral argument for coercion evaporates. There is simply no justification for it, and all who engage in it are given over to Evil.

Mutually beneficial win-win interactions are the ideal, and anyone telling you otherwise wants to exploit you.

Yep.

Modern governments have leveraged violence into a huge threat projection.

They do lots of violence, yes, but mostly it's the threat of violence that is used to coerce people.

It's ingenious really. A true evolution of power: trick most people into thinking it's noble and legitimate, and threaten everyone else.

That way you keep actual violence to a minimum and get maximum compliance.

The awkward truth is that they are so leveraged on threats, they cannot actually make good on those threats. If the average man was to believe violence is not valid, the whole system of coercion evaporates.

It's mostly smoke and mirrors, and a guy with a dagger hiding in the hallways.

The Menonites, for example, have fled war zones and refused to fight or be conscripted. They had no protection.

They migrated to Ukraine, and then migrated to Paraguay - which was "nowhere" at the time.

They carved out their own civilization in the most inhospitable land in Paraguay known as the Chaco.

They are now the main component of Paraguay's economy: beef exports.

What was the place no one wanted to live due it's harshness, they tamed and now have better roads and electrical infrastructure than the rest of the country.

They have preserved their culture and resisted invaders, without being sucked into warfare and violence, and without relying on being "protected" by a big stick.

They certainly are resisting invaders.

Have you tried to join them? If you don't conform to their social values, you will get spat out - peacefully of course, via social ostracism.

More spell casting!

Your spell is that you are blurring the definition of violence, to water it down and hollow out my statement.

That's not an argument, it's trying to redefine words to make your counterpart wrong by definition.

This is no insult to you, I'm just calling it how I see it.

Violence: the physical aggression between humans (or "people").

Menonites and Amish, and there's some practically pacifist groups (as in must organise under voluntary ethics for practical reasons) like the Afrikaaners in Orania.

The only "we" that I need to define is the fact that humans exist in relationship to other humans.

Whether that relationship is (or should be) peaceful or coercive is the debate.

Statists believe that "we" must involve coercion.
Pacifists believe that "we" must not involve coercion.

Violence is well defined, attempting to blur the category is just spell casting.

Pacifist societies do exist, and are doing quite well for themselves.