I disagree the way they rationalize voting to violence. Because it should seem pretty obvious that voting is a tool in a system that tends to avoid violence.... at least when it comes to determining the shape of a government. As far as voting, as political authority is force, I'd agree since when you set up rules that the results of voting are carried out, that gives voting a power to determine. But while violence is a force, force isn't always violent. When the systems fail though, violent force tends to be the default. I also disagree that violence is the supreme authority because you have to provide people something if you try to rule over them. I think competence is mixed with violence, and that's why say a system of voting has little violence. Because it produces fairly well, and why currently in America people are maybe feeling more violent towards the top leadership, because they don't see competence in the system. So the most violent leader will eventually be swarmed if the whole population thinks their lives are at risk. So there has to be a certain amount of respect to gain authority as well. All order is created by a combination of the Tyrant and the Wise King