Does legislation = violence/force? by canttakesky

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I kind of take exception with the premise, in that all societies have laws, so that's kind of saying that all societies from primitive man forward threaten people with...well, death...if they don't obey the laws that society has agreed upon. Isn't that going a bit far?

As to your question, however; if someone disobeys any law of consequence, they end up being put in jail. If they resist incarceration with violence, the law requires that whatever is necessary to subdue them need be done.

But it doesn't work out that way the VAST majority of the time, so making a blanket statement like "legislation = gun to your head" is fallacious, unless you take it to the extreme.

If one resists by simply saying "no", taken to the end result, they'd end up in jail, being picked up and placed there. In the vast majority of cases, if the person doesn't resist with violence, no violence would occur.

So by "resist" I assume you mean resist violently, which yes, would result in violence being done to them. But, remember passive resistance? I do; and no violence resulted from it when we practiced it.

So I don't think this is s valid question on at least two levels; legislation is something all societies agree upon in order to have an ordered society, so what is the valid alternative? And second, if by simply "resist" you mean saying "no, I won't", then the only violence that would ensue is if YOU started it.

Force, yes; but the original statement was "gun to your head", I believe.

I understand the premise, but I think it's an extreme comparison which doesn't come into the average person's life 99% of the time.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 2:34 PM

CHRISISALL

Life is forcing.
A jar when opening, a kid to make wear his helmet while bicycling, a country that is not complying with your geo-political wishes.

I 'forced' bullies to realize I was not to be trifled with in Junior High.

I was 'forced' to pay a bogus traffic ticket in court.

God, guns & guts made this world.
Apparently.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 3:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
so that's kind of saying that all societies from primitive man forward threaten people with...well, death...if they don't obey the laws that society has agreed upon. Isn't that going a bit far?

No. If they don't take it all the way to incarceration and death, it is not a law. I would simply be a... suggestion, a recommendation.

Quote:
As to your question, however; if someone disobeys any law of consequence, they end up being put in jail. If they resist incarceration with violence, the law requires that whatever is necessary to subdue them need be done.

Isn't that violence?

Quote:
But it doesn't work out that way the VAST majority of the time,...

ONLY because people know that if they resist or ignore the law, they will end up in jail or dead on the way to jail.

Quote:
so making a blanket statement like "legislation = gun to your head" is fallacious, unless you take it to the extreme.

It is as fallacious as saying, "Armed robbery = violence/force." If the VAST majority of armed robberies don't end up with anyone shooting the weapon or anyone dead, does that mean it is not a violent crime? No. It just means people respect the power of the gun from a LONG WAYS off.

Quote:
In the vast majority of cases, if the person doesn't resist with violence, no violence would occur.

Imagine now if Law X were an unjust law, one that you DIDN'T agree with. Let's say, Law X = Jews must move to the ghettos. Bob refuses to move. Consequence A = Cops show up at the door and physically remove Bob from his home. Consequence B = Bob is physically handcuffed and carried to jail.

Do you think that because no shots were fired, no violence was committed against Bob?

Quote:
So I don't think this is s valid question on at least two levels; legislation is something all societies agree upon in order to have an ordered society, so what is the valid alternative?

No laws. Or at least, no laws against any action that is NOT violent to begin with. In other words, if laws are violent, then use violence (laws) only against violent crimes: murder, rape, armed robbery. No laws against all other unethical things.

Quote:
And second, if by simply "resist" you mean saying "no, I won't", then the only violence that would ensue is if YOU started it.

In my view, physically forcing me to relocate to a cage, against my will, is violent. That is not counting the actual violence that ensues if I say disagreeable things to the cops, without lifting a finger against them.

Quote:
Force, yes; but the original statement was "gun to your head", I believe.

The original statement was Magon being against "using violence to force others to do their bidding." I said, "using violence to force others to do their bidding" was the same thing as legislation.

It seems like we agree force is involved. We don't agree on "violence."

Could you define what violence means to you?

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 3:27 PM

While you're thinking of your definition of violence, here is mine.

Law X = all brides must have sex with the king on her wedding night.

Bobette refuses.

Consequence A = She is physically removed and carried from her husband's bed, against her will.

Consequence B = She is physically placed in the king's bed, against her will.

She is told if she fights back in any way, SHE would START the violence against authority and any violence that ensues is HER fault and well deserved.

Consequence C = She lies passively still. The king has sex with her.

No blood was shed. No shots were fired. No violence was committed. Or was there? Can she be raped without any violence?

From Wiki: Violence is the expression of physical or verbal force against one or more people, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence

It doesn't matter what Law X is. If Bob suffers physical consequences (A through Z) against his will, there is violence. If he is not allowed to fight back against the physical consequences because of threat of pain and hurt, there is violence. If he complies because of threat of physical consequences against his will, even if those physical consequences never materialize, there is violence.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:05 PM

See, this is what I don't get about you CTS. You post a thread with a question as its title, but you clearly have an answer set in your mind already. As soon as someone disagrees with what you already believe, rather than addressing their disgreement, you post this rather extreme and not at all applicable example.

Yes, a despot raping an innocent is violent. Setting speed limits on a curvy road and enforcing that safety related limit with fines is not the same thing as a king raping a young bride.

Are you actually willing to discuss these issues with those who see things differently than you? Or are you only here on RWED, as you seem to have been before, to state your set beliefs and dare folks to disagree? Then get all upset when they do?

ETA: Yes, and for the first time I have fucked with a thread title. Because hey - let's be honest as to what this is about.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:23 PM

DREAMTROVE

CTS,

This is a pointless debate. Your point is obvious to anyone who has applied logic, and the opposition is opposing for the sake of opposing and so well never cave.

You told me recently to let one of these go for a similar reason, so it's time to let this one go. Yes, you're right, IMHO, but you will not get anywhere by arguing it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:27 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Setting speed limits on a curvy road and enforcing that safety related limit with fines is not the same thing as a king raping a young bride.

BUT, going to jail for exceeding arbitrary speed limits (and they ARE arbitrary when different driving abilities are taken into account, or NOT, as the case may be) & getting assaulted IN jail because it's an unREGULATED environment IS force.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is a pointless debate.

Most of the debates here on RWED are pointless.

I think there must be some serious disparity in our definitions if Niki and Magon do not see legislation as violent. I would like to figure out where our definitions differ, if they would humor me.

Hey, you argued with a Nazi. Let me try this. I just gotta try.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
BUT, going to jail for exceeding arbitrary speed limits (and they ARE arbitrary when different driving abilities are taken into account, or NOT, as the case may be) & getting assaulted IN jail because it's an unREGULATED environment IS force.

You don't even need to get assaulted IN jail.

If you are physically forced to go to jail against your will, and you are not allowed to fight back against this physical kidnapping on threat of pain and suffering, it is more than force; it is violence.

It doesn't matter what Law X is. It could be something you really agree with like "Don't murder people." Or it could be something you despise like, "all brides sleep with the king." It could be something more neutral like "Drive under 60 mph."

If it is enforced with physical force and incarceration or worse, the law is violent.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:42 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

What about legislation that does not require you to do anything, but protects you...ie right to free speech, to fair trial, to appeal judgements made against you.

or which prevents others from doing harm to you..
from murdering or raping you, stealing from you, from ripping you off, from molesting your children?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 5:10 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

If it is enforced with physical force and incarceration or worse, the law is violent.

Agreed.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is a pointless debate. Your point is obvious to anyone who has applied logic, and the opposition is opposing for the sake of opposing and so well never cave.

And to think... I used to think you had an open mind DT. Wasn't more than a week ago, but you've shattered that idea right to bits. I'm beginning to see that, at heart, you aren't so far from Rappy. You're definitely more polite and you take the time to explain yourself, which is nice, but you're just as apologetically biased, and just as unaware of it. (Though I'm still not convinced that he's not a puppet out to make the right look bad. You I think are real.)

Anyway, how can anything be a "debate" when you've already put the rubber stamp on one side as the The Correct One? How you ever actually done real debate? How about you put honest effort into understanding and supporting the counter argument, as an exercise for that big intellect of yours? Is your hefty brain capable of such exertion?

But you do prove my point - that CTS posing this thread as a question was pure 100% bullshit. If you she truly does think like you, she wasn't out to ask any questions here. She was out to step on a soapbox. My title change was right on.

My counter: Hey, I want less rules imposed on me. I abso-fucking-lutely don't want this TSA airport security thing, and many speeding laws I could do without, since they're just about making cashy money for the fuzz. But let's talk about the people I've known - more than one - who live on a bend in the road and end up with cars in their front yard because of the idiots can't slow down for a turn. I'm all for a sign warning drivers to slow the hell down so they don't end up in my friend's living room. As Magon said: some laws make for less violence.

(ie How would your fictional lovely young virgin avoid getting raped by the king, CTS? Perhaps because LAWS began to be applied to the king for a change?)

Have you driven in someplace like Georgia? (The country?) I have, and I'd much rather have a few road rules then face that mad death race every day. I don't want the wide open, well-ordered sheep lanes of Plano, Texas either... Hmm. The ordered chaos of Boston suits me just fine.

See,the world has shades of gray. It's not that all laws are bad or all laws are good, though I suppose it's easier and more comforting to shade them all black and assume every one who's not 100% with you shades them all white, so then you never have to think about the issue again... At least, never have to discuss it, because you're so very sure that you're right.

Oh sorry. That was *your* soapbox. Go on, I'm done. Step right up!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 5:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Setting speed limits on a curvy road and enforcing that safety related limit with fines is not the same thing as a king raping a young bride.

BUT, going to jail for exceeding arbitrary speed limits (and they ARE arbitrary when different driving abilities are taken into account, or NOT, as the case may be) & getting assaulted IN jail because it's an unREGULATED environment IS force.

The laughing Chrisisall

I see what you did there...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 9:04 PM

DREAMTROVE

Mal

I hoped you could discuss topics. I see I'm being forced off the board. Open minded is not the same as idiocy. Laws are enforced, that means they're backed with force. It's the meaning of the word.

But CTS is right. It does not matter what I say, or where I stand, I'm not a true believer in the socialist religion, and you guys will stone me for it, and there's nothing I can do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 9:24 PM

DREAMTROVE

CTS

I've debated with these people many times. Individually, it's easy, because individually, they are reasonable humans. When they get together in groups they become pack hunters and join the hive mind with their fellow travelers. This beast cannot be reasoned with.

This would make Magon's point if she wanted to: It's possible that a gang of Nazis cannot be reasoned with in the same sense that a single Nazi can.

Actually, what it most reminds me of is Hyenas. There's no real attempt at logic, only grouping, insults, slander and more grouping, until the non believers become a mass that can be called enemy. I know they'll find it offensive, but they've already called me a Nazi enough times. Strangely, I managed to set them off without ever saying anything particularly right wing, or personally insulting them, and what I find most curious was that it was in the absense of the most venomous members of the pack.

Still, my bullying tolerance is quite low. I can deal with unreasonable individuals, but group bullying pack hunters are my limit.

I'm abandoning ship. I wish I had whatever it is that Chris is smoking.

Don't be a stranger.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 1:10 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Gov't

Because we have more guns than you.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 1:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
What about legislation that does not require you to do anything, but protects you...ie right to free speech, to fair trial, to appeal judgements made against you.

Very good question! I had to think about that.

Does it require SOMEBODY to do something? If it doesn't, why is it a law? If it does, what if Bob refuses?

Law X = You cannot make laws against free speech.

Bob makes a law against free speech in his little town. He refuses to change that. What happens?

Let's say Bob is a cop in his town, and he continues to arrest people who violate Bob's Speech Law. Eventually, bigger cops than Bob will come to Bob's town and arrest Bob.

So yes, even laws that protect rights are violent. I happen to like THESE laws, and I happen to think violence in these cases are justified--because they are only ever enforced on violent lawmakers themselves. But are they violent? Yes.

Quote:
or which prevents others from doing harm to you..from murdering or raping you, stealing from you, from ripping you off, from molesting your children?

Yes, definitely. It is just that in these cases, one can argue that violence is justified against someone who has committed violence first. If we lived in an anarchy, some individual person is likely to go kill that murderer or rapist or thief or child molester. What law does is "standardize" the violent response against people accused of violence, as it were.

It is as if one were to say: "If you molest a kid, violence WILL be done to you. But we're going to set up rules for this violence, so that all violence goes through the same standard procedures. If you try to jump the gun and break these rules (and I'm talking to you Judge Auraptor Dredd), violence will be done to YOU."

When it comes to legislation then, one has to ask, "When is this violence justified?" I think a good argument can be made for justifying violent responses to loss of life and property, and by extension pollution which results in loss of life and property. So cap-and-trade legislation can be argued to be justifiable violence. But the legislation itself is violent just the same.

If law is enforced or enforceable (ultimately with incarceration or worse), it is violent.

Here in Peru, they have a law that all children must go to school. But if a child doesn't go, they have absolutely no enforcement mechanism in place (no truant officers). Nothing happens at all, and some kids do work instead of go to school. In cases like these, the law exists only on paper and not in reality. I would say cases of nonenforceable law are the only laws that aren't violent--when they are simply suggestions.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 1:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm abandoning ship.

Thanks for popping your head in. I appreciate it.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 1:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I see I'm being forced off the board. Open minded is not the same as idiocy. Laws are enforced, that means they're backed with force. It's the meaning of the word.

Oh, I didn't see this. I thought you were leaving this thread, not the whole board.

Hey, sorry you feel you got hyena'ed. Everyone gets that from time to time here on RWED, except for a few folks like Frem and Chrisisall (I don't know how they do it!) Look at what poor Niki and Kwicko have to put up with. These here are shark-infested waters, or hyena-infested plains. Just dodge the sharky hyenas. My strategy is to press the ignore button.

But yes, I've taken my breaks from RWED for years at a time. So I completely understand. For what it's worth, I hope you come back. I learn a lot from your posts. You know I don't always agree, but you frequently help me consider things in a different light.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 3:03 AM

Magon, I just thought of a good example that illustrates the difference between violent law and non-violent "law."

The Geneva Convention is a widely accepted set of standards for behavior. Because it is non-enforceable, the Geneva Convention cannot really be called "legislation." But it does serve as a moral yardstick, a principled guideline for how we SHOULD behave, a "law" in quotation marks. It is as close to a non-violent "law" as we get.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 10:04 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I find it sad that DT ran away, which he did not so long ago as well.

As to this thread, Magons’ response answers for me. If it’s just “suggestion” and not “law”, what about the driver who runs a stoplight and kills someone? There are so many examples of laws which protect us, that to say there should only be “suggestions” isn’t realistic, to me. You’ve made an extreme statement, which I don’t think takes into consideration all the logical reasons just having “suggestions” rather than laws is unworkable.

I say again, legislation is not force or violence; there is bad/unfair legislation, I would never argue otherwise. But I maintain that laws are the basis of society in that they are things society has agreed upon in order to function. That it gets taken too far is unquestionable; that some are enforced wrongly or with unreasoning violence is also unquestionable. But NO laws, and no force with which to enforce them, is the worst kind of anarchy. It equates to “might makes right”, in that anyone can do anything THEY want to do, irregardless of anyone else.

So in your taking it to the extreme. Taken to extreme, yes, law is force; but CTTS' only alternative of “suggestions” is worse, to me. Its corollary, if you will, is how it was in Afghanistan when I lived there with regard to traffic laws. As I described before, traffic laws were fairly new. When a man on a donkey came to a policeman telling him to stop, he argued with the policeman. It would get into a shouting match, and whoever shouted loudest won. There was no enforcement of traffic laws at that time, so the policeman telling him to stop was essentially exactly like your “suggestion”, and it created havoc.

So my reply would be that yes, if you want to take it to that extreme, LAWS=force, and taken to a further extreme, violence. My argument is that I don't think it's a valid oint, insofar as that is only the case when you take it to the extreme. I don't feel that LAWS, agreements by society, are necessarily force or violence, I think you've phrased it that way and taken it dow a road which is not viable.

I think force of some kind has to be utilized to ENforce laws, but that force is only necessary when someone doesn't take the "suggestion" of agreed-upon law and abide by it. Ergo, it is a suggestion society has agree upon, and if one member of that society chooses to resist that suggestion to the detriment of other members of the society, they are violating the pact society has made in the first place.

Taken to extreme, you are right. LAWS must use force when one resists them in the extreme. But "legislation = force" isn't viable as a blanket statement.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 10:11 AM

Thank you for your response, Niki. Obviously you and I don't agree on this topic, but thank you for taking the time.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 10:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I don't feel that LAWS, agreements by society, are necessarily force or violence,

If ALL members of the society agree on the law, then I agree with you. Agreed upon laws do not represent force or violence because they do not need to be enforced. No enforcement = no violence.

Allow me to reword my argument this way. If 99% of society agree to Law X, then Law X is not violent for 99% of society. No enforcement = no violence.

It only represents violence for the 1% of society that does not agree. If they are only complying because of the threats of enforcement, then the law is violent for them. Where there is enforcement, there is violence.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 10:59 AM

I don't know if I'll ever have time to debate the pro-law side of this thread, but can I just ask what the point of this thread is? Let's say that I agree that breaking the law has negative consequences for the perpetrator. What is the problem with this? Are you saying there should be no enforceable laws? (If so, that would have its own set of negative consequences, I imagine). What is your reason for being opposed to a society with laws? Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 11:24 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

For my own part, I believe that Law and Law Enforcement are necessary. However, I believe that lawmaking should be done with the understanding that you are putting a gun to someone's head. Hence, the quantity of Laws should be minimized as much as possible to limit the number of people thus negatively impacted. The question I tend to have is, "How many laws can we dispense with and still squeak by?"

Take the laws against marijuana consumption as an example. I am not convinced that they benefit society more than they harm society. I would do away with such a law, even if I believed the drug posed some danger, because the law and its enforcement seems to pose a great deal of danger and cost to the citizenry.

Were I the Chief Cook and Bottle Washer of All Things, I would take some time to examine the full body of our laws and see how many I could eliminate without destroying society or liberty. (Yes, some laws do help to preserve liberty, even as they limit it. It's a balancing act where you try to get the most proverbial bang for your buck.)

The difference between someone like me (a Libertarian) and an Anarchist, is that I have some use for laws and believe they are sometimes necessary. An Anarchist believes that, left to their own devices, people will just sort this stuff out. Essentially, they believe that people aren't as bad as we think, and they can work together to achieve ends in a society without imposed structure.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 11:29 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mala, I believe she is saying "no laws". When asked the alternative, she said "suggestions". I can't tell you more than that, that's what I took away from it.

And yes, I wonder two about the initial question. Like I said, taken to the extreme, laws are enFORCED, as mentioned, but I don't think that pertains to everyday life and I'm not sure what the significance is.

Ah, but Anthony, the only question is does legislation = violence. Whether we APPROVE of laws or not, that's the question.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 11:40 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Legislation does not equal violence until you enforce the Legislation. If you enforce the Legislation with anything that requires the capitulation of the violator, there is violence. There is simply no other way to look at it.

There are some societies that sidestep this requisite by performing enforcement that does NOT require capitulation. For instance, some societies will shun violators. Shunning does not force the violator to do anything. They can feel awful at their own discretion. A modern society might shun someone by withdrawing services that would normally be provided.

However, any chain of enforcement that *forces capitulation* results in the threat of violence. Period.

It is up to the individual to decide whether forcing capitulation is worthwhile when creating the legislation to be enforced.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 11:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
I don't know if I'll ever have time to debate the pro-law side of this thread, but can I just ask what the point of this thread is? Let's say that I agree that breaking the law has negative consequences for the perpetrator. What is the problem with this? Are you saying there should be no enforceable laws? (If so, that would have its own set of negative consequences, I imagine). What is your reason for being opposed to a society with laws? Thanks.

Hi Malachite,

This question started on another thread. Magonsdaughter stated that she was against "using violence to force others to do their bidding." I said, "using violence to force others to do their bidding" was the same thing as legislation. She said, she never understood why people said that.

So I started a new thread simply to address this issue. Does legislation = violence? I have my view, obviously, that it does.

My definitions are:

1. Legislation/law is a rule that is enforced. If a rule is not enforced, I don't call it a law, but a suggestion.

2. Enforcement is force and violence.

3. Therefore legislation = force and violence.

You can read the arguments on the other side for yourself.

In this thread, I am not really addressing whether the violence in law is justified, which are good laws/good violence and which are not, what to do if we had no laws. Those questions belong on other threads.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 11:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Mala, I believe she is saying "no laws". When asked the alternative, she said "suggestions". I can't tell you more than that, that's what I took away from it.

Yeah, that is what I'm guessing as well, and I think it would have its own set of negatives. Do we have any examples of nations that run smoothly on a policy of unenforceable suggestions? Also, what do you do with the people who don't follow the suggestions? For example, if someone commits several first degree murders, what suggestion will you make to protect his future victims and obtain redress for the previous victims?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Legislation does not equal violence until you enforce the Legislation.

I contend the threat of enforcement alone is violent. Just like the threat of using a gun on your head (even if I don't actually use the gun) is violent.

Quote:
If you enforce the Legislation with anything that requires the capitulation of the violator, there is violence. There is simply no other way to look at it.

You think so, DT thought so, and I think so. But obviously, there are people who look at it in other ways and disagree.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 12:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Do we have any examples of nations that run smoothly on a policy of unenforceable suggestions? Also, what do you do with the people who don't follow the suggestions? For example, if someone commits several first degree murders, what suggestion will you make to protect his future victims and obtain redress for the previous victims?

These are all good questions, but I would like to see the anarchism issue discussed on a separate thread, just because it is so complicated. On this one, I would like to keep the focus on simply whether legislation = violence. If we can find some common ground on just this one topic, it would be meaningful for future discussions.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 12:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
I don't know if I'll ever have time to debate the pro-law side of this thread, but can I just ask what the point of this thread is? Let's say that I agree that breaking the law has negative consequences for the perpetrator. What is the problem with this? Are you saying there should be no enforceable laws? (If so, that would have its own set of negative consequences, I imagine). What is your reason for being opposed to a society with laws? Thanks.

Hi Malachite,

This question started on another thread. Magonsdaughter stated that she was against "using violence to force others to do their bidding." I said, "using violence to force others to do their bidding" was the same thing as legislation. She said, she never understood why people said that.

So I started a new thread simply to address this issue. Does legislation = violence? I have my view, obviously, that it does.

My definitions are:

1. Legislation/law is a rule that is enforced. If a rule is not enforced, I don't call it a law, but a suggestion.

2. Enforcement is force and violence.

3. Therefore legislation = force and violence.

You can read the arguments on the other side for yourself.

In this thread, I am not really addressing whether the violence in law is justified, which are good laws/good violence and which are not, what to do if we had no laws. Those questions belong on other threads.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

Ah, okay then. Now I guess I need to reread the responses...

Perhaps the question should become, how is the government's use of force to obtain compliance different than John Q Citizen's use of force to obtain compliance?

You asked the question, does legislation equal violence? By your logic, would you also say that responsible parenting equals violence?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 12:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I hoped you could discuss topics. I see I'm being forced off the board.

I hope you are not referring to me with this, because not once have I suggested or even hinted that you ought to leave the board. In fact, I cry a very loud and long bullshit that you even bring it up like this. I'm more than a little peeved that you'd accuse me of trying to silence your voice, simple because I don't agree with you and I'm not afraid to say it.

The fact that you take openly stated disagreement as a reason that you can no longer engage in discourse on these boards says something rather profound about you.

If you do choose to leave, I'm sad, because more voices here is good. But if you try to pin your matyrdom on me rather than taking ownership of your decision, all you'll get from me is a big ole fat

Quote:
Open minded is not the same as idiocy.

The fact that you take a request to be more open-minded as a request that you be an idiot says something else profound about you. You seem to equate "not thinking like DT" with "idiocy". Which is your choice, but it does make it clear just how open your mind is capable of being. And it might explain why you're getting less than warm-and-fuzzy responses to your posts lately.

Quote:
But CTS is right. It does not matter what I say, or where I stand, I'm not a true believer in the socialist religion, and you guys will stone me for it, and there's nothing I can do.

The fact that you vilify anyone you does not agree with you by assigning them the completely non-applicable title of "socialist religion believer" is yet a third profound statement about how you think.

ETA: As for "hunting in packs", that's another thing you've invented to support this narrative of yours. I do nothing here in packs. I rarely exchange PMs with anyone, and any responses I've written to you were purely my own.

If you are hearing similar things from many different people, perhaps the common thread there is you? Perhaps it is in your openly stated (and often less openly suggested) belief that to not think like you is to be an idiot?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 12:13 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I contend the threat of enforcement alone is violent. Just like the threat of using a gun on your head (even if I don't actually use the gun) is violent."

Hello,

Keep in mind, as I said, that there are means of enforcement that are nonviolent. The Shunning example is a good one, and one that works in a society where everyone is highly dependent on everyone else. Nothing is done TO the violator. But nothing is done FOR the violator, either. The shunned individual simply finds their life becoming much more difficult because no one will help them out.

This is the primary enforcement model of norms in social behavior.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 12:25 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Perhaps the question should become, how is the government's use of force to obtain compliance different than John Q Citizen's use of force to obtain compliance?

You asked the question, does legislation equal violence? By your logic, would you also say that responsible parenting equals violence?

Well said, Mala.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"I contend the threat of enforcement alone is violent. Just like the threat of using a gun on your head (even if I don't actually use the gun) is violent."

Hello,

Keep in mind, as I said, that there are means of enforcement that are nonviolent. The Shunning example is a good one, and one that works in a society where everyone is highly dependent on everyone else. Nothing is done TO the violator. But nothing is done FOR the violator, either. The shunned individual simply finds their life becoming much more difficult because no one will help them out.

This is the primary enforcement model of norms in social behavior.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

Anthony -- your consequence of "shunning" the violator sounds like it has a parallel of "economic sanctions" to a country. Nothing is done to the offending country, but life is made hard for it. As in your shunning example, though, I'm not sure how well economic sanctions work, though, when offending countries find other offensive friends so they don't have to highly dependent on those countries they've upset...

Cant take Sky -- But there is a difference between putting a gun to a person's head and actually pulling the trigger. One involves brains being splattered and the actual taking of life. Hmmm, I guess your point is that both scenarios involve force and violence, and that any use of force, threatened or actual, is what legislation represents.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
Perhaps the question should become, how is the government's use of force to obtain compliance different than John Q Citizen's use of force to obtain compliance?

You asked the question, does legislation equal violence? By your logic, would you also say that responsible parenting equals violence?
Well said, Mala.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

Thank you. Actually, on rereading the thread, I've appreciated your responses and cant take skys responses as well (actually, many of the posts have been quite good).

As an aside, I'm thinking of writing a parenting book, called "Parenting with authority: You'll do as I say -- or else...", inspired by this thread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
You asked the question, does legislation equal violence? By your logic, would you also say that responsible parenting equals violence?

What an excellent question!

Frem, where are you?

My answer is, "Absolutely yes, if 'responsible parenting' means enforcing rules with physical and emotional pain and suffering."

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 12:50 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I would posit that what you call responsible parenting absolutely entails violence. I am not attaching a moral value to this, but it is a fact.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Hmmm, I guess your point is that both scenarios involve force and violence, and that any use of force, threatened or actual, is what legislation represents.

Exactly. Thank you for understanding what I'm saying so well, even if you disagree.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 12:52 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Thanks Anthony, for making the argument I was holding off on cause I couldn't cut it down to a manageable size... but yeah, that.

There's also, as Magons noted in the Norfolk Island thread, when the consent is MUTUAL - if you agreed to it, well then it's only right folk hold you to that, save in the case where the deal gets changed without your input or consent.

That is one of my main bitches with government, case in point, social security - when those folks paid into it, it was in the expectation of a certain deal, and then the Gov goes and CHANGES the deal without their input or consent, and that's just bullshit.

That's like makin the payments on a BMW and getting handed a Fiat - I think at that point you've a right to say the deal has been broken and you want your money back.

Besides, as has been shown over and over again, when "The Rules" get in the way of the american Government, they get tossed out the window, I've offered uncountable examples of exactly this in previous discussions, so IMHO, it really is "rule of the gun", we've just gotten pretty good at pretending it is not.

And for an extreme example of how even the most minor nitpick law carries in the end lethal force behind it, lemme offer you a tale of one of my spiritual ancestors (since I come from a line of mountainfolk), The Mad Trapper of Rat River.
http://tomahawksadventuretravel.blogspot.com/2009/09/mad-trapper-of-ra
t-river.html

Mind you, from HIS perspective, all he wanted was to be left alone, and was acting in his own defense against folk who aggressed on him - they aren't even sure he was guilty of the original accusation...

And that doesn't make him any less dead, does it ?

So Anthony's point makes perfect sense - any time you want there to be a law, want that law to be enforced, you have a moral DUTY to ask yourself one question.
"Am I willing to kill someone, over this ?"

And if you are not, there should be no law, in that case, period.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Keep in mind, as I said, that there are means of enforcement that are nonviolent. The Shunning example is a good one, and one that works in a society where everyone is highly dependent on everyone else.

Thank you for reminding me of this.

I should amend my assertion to say more precisely: "All legislation enforced with violence = violence."

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 12:54 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Anthony -- your consequence of "shunning" the violator sounds like it has a parallel of "economic sanctions" to a country. Nothing is done to the offending country, but life is made hard for it. As in your shunning example, though, I'm not sure how well economic sanctions work, though, when offending countries find other offensive friends so they don't have to highly dependent on those countries they've upset..."

Hello,

As I said, Shunning is most valuable in communities where everyone is highly dependent on everyone else. I suspect such communities tend to be small and out of the way. However, one might imagine a highly socialized society to include the threat of Shunning.

It is an example for the sake of argument, and not my recommended method of governmental structure. (Though it is notable, again as I pointed out, that norms of social behavior are achieved by a form of Shunning people who don't conform.)

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 12:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA

And no, responsible parenting doesn't involve violence, because if done responsibly there WILL NEVER BE A NEED FOR IT.

But that responsibility spreads too - how can a parent who cannot BE there cause they gotta slave at a job two hours away for ten hours a day be "responsible" - how can they raise their child if the very act of providing support for them thus prevents them from effectively parenting ?

Our society has much to answer for, in that respect, and to throw it all upon people we back into corners and give no choice, them BLAME them for making the only choices we have left them, or become hostile to them for violating the "rules" of a society which has given them no alternative but to do so...

That one is on us - and I *know* whereof I speak, since my own upbringing was prettymuch DIY, I wasn't just a latchkey kid, I was a damn Feral - since my own mothers efforts to keep the bills paid and put food on the table limited her "parenting" time to several hours of a single day per week, and she trusted NO ONE else to do the job for damn good reasons, because I simply would not accept their "authority" over me till they proved to ME (not her, to ME!) that they had a right to it.

Violence and Fear are no substitute for respect, and once you have the latter, YOU HAVE NO NEED of the former.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 1:00 PM

"What an excellent question!

Frem, where are you?

My answer is, "Absolutely yes, if 'responsible parenting' means enforcing rules with physical and emotional pain and suffering."

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

Even if you take out corporal punishment, you still would have time outs, privilege restriction/removal, and simple disaproval. Simply saying "no" to a child who wants the candybar at the supermarket or wants to sleep over at a friend's on a school night is going to cause emotional pain for that child. So I guess your answer would still be that, "parenting equals violence". And I guess my answer would be that parenting has a lot more dimensions to it than simply being violent. Being "violent" is an aspect responsible parenting, but it does not fully define what a responsible parent is. Parenting is also mentoring, providing, consoling, loving, etc. Simply limiting it to the phrase "parenting equals violence" does not adequately define it. In the same way, trying to make legislation equal to violence does not fully encompass what legislation is intended to do. You are only getting one aspect of legislation. I think you need to take into account the whole, not just the individual aspects/parts of the concept because you do a disservice to the whole by labeling it as merely one of its aspects. Sorry, I'm getting wordy here. Is my point coming across?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 1:09 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Actually it is, Mala, and this bit, well, really it deserves it's own thread, cause I could write pages and pages (remember, I've studied this stuff with avid frenzy for damn near thirty YEARS...) without even stopping for breath, but it's always worth discussing.

I meant physical violence, of course - but I think the core is a mutual respect.

Case in point, the kid I built the dollhouse for, no threat, regardless of how viable, from her mother will change her behavior one iota...

But one stern disapproving look from ME stops her in her tracks.

The difference ?
Respect: it's as simple as that - and you got to give it, in order to get it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 1:14 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"privilege restriction/removal"

Hello,

I do not consider this to be violence except under very limited criteria. Specifically: Limiting freedom of movement (trapping someone) is violent to me, and it is an aspect of parenting I've never been able to do away with. I have never worked out a way to secure the safety of children without imprisoning them or restraining them at one point or another.

However, telling someone that you are not going to buy them candy is not violent at all, even if the depravation causes emotional distress. It is, to me, the vital difference between doing something TO someone and choosing not to do something FOR someone.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Perhaps the question should become, how is the government's use of force to obtain compliance different than John Q Citizen's use of force to obtain compliance?

You are just an unending fountain of good questions.

It should go without saying that the following is just my opinion.

Chuck murders a little girl. Legislation's response to Chuck is violent. If it were up to her dad, his response would to violent. If it were up to John Citizen, his response would be violent.

What legislation does is standardize violence for all perpetrators and on behalf of all victims. The community agrees ahead of time, hopefully in a more rational and dispassionate manner, what kind of violence should be done to ALL murderers of little girls, so they all get the same fate, whether the murderer is rich or poor, white or black, etc. The idea is to make retaliation more equitable and "fair" across all demographics.

It also standardizes violence for all citizens in the community. Her dad may want to drown Chuck in a tub of acid, while John Citizen would want to tar and feather him. Legislation tries to decide ahead of time a method of retaliation that would appease most people for this type of crime.

I think of legislation sort of as "pre-fabricated" violence, standardized in a factory for one-size-fits-all. Contrast this to citizen violence which could be quite unpredictable, inequitable, and over or under-reactive.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2010 1:30 PM