Does legislation = violence/force? by canttakesky

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

An overly simplified rule of thumb that I use is this:

If you are doing it to me, it's violence. If I am doing it to myself, it's not.

It is, as I said, overly simplified.

When I throw a tantrum because you won't buy me candy, I am causing the pain to myself. (Doing it to myself.)
When you smack my bottom because I threw a tantrum, you are the cause of the pain. (You are Doing it to me.)

You know, this discussion has caused me to have several revelations about my upbringing and my father's philosophy. I just realized how many things he taught me, not by explicitly stating them, but rather by implying them through the actions he took.

Perhaps it is something worth discussing in another thread, since this thread's purpose has been explicitly limited to defining a specific parameter.

--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 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If you are doing it to me, it's violence. If I am doing it to myself, it's not.

That sounds like a good rule of thumb.

I'm thinking long and hard about this. What is violent in parenting? I am inclined to equate violent with any kind of physical force or physical pain/suffering or severe emotional pain. Mild to moderate emotional pain may be abusive, but not violent.

------------
Corporal punishment? Yes, that one is easy.

Time out? Yes, because of the physical force used to hold them there. I know tons of people who would not agree, but chair in the corner time out is kiddie jail. I had to hold my kid in time out physically until I realized it caused probably more pain than being spanked.

Withholding necessities? Go to bed without supper? Yes, I think that is violent. Inflicting pain through denial of basic biological needs crosses that line for me.

Withholding privileges? No. No dessert until you finish your supper? Kid may be unhappy, but unhappiness is not violence.

Disapproval? No. Disapproval of an action or choice may cause pain, but it is no more violent than someone in RWED being reasonably criticized. Disapproval of a child entirely--coming from a parent, it is devastating. It denies a very deep and basic emotional need. I would not say it is violent, but I would say it is abusive. Not all abuse is violent.

Snarky, snappy, condescending abuse? No. This is so much more common. I hear this all the time in bathrooms and playgrounds. I would say yes to abusive; no to violent.

Fines? Yes. Physical confiscation of private property = physical force = violent.

Verbal abuse? Yes. I'm talking about full fledged verbal abuse. If it is bad enough, it shreds the child's entire person into tiny little pieces. You can't see the blood, but the kid is bleeding, slowly losing his/her life force.
---------------

Is responsible parenting violent? No. It doesn't have to be at all.

If responsible parenting includes physically forcing the child to comply against his will and/or severe emotional suffering, then yes, it is violent.

I believe that is how I would define violence in society as well. May enforcement resort to physical force (threat included) to make someone comply against his/her will? May it resort to severe emotional suffering (threat included)? If the answer is yes to either question, then yes, the enforcement (and thereby the law) is violent.

What I am realizing is that there is some subjectivity to the definition of violence. Someone else's definition may be broader or narrower than mine.

It is just that almost all legislation I know is ultimately enforced through obviously violent means such as incarceration. But I can see a case being made for some hypothetical legislation not going that far.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 1:21 AM

KANEMAN

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.

CTS, you should write porn.....or make snuff videos.

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 3:43 AM

CTS said "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."

Sorry: I'm having a problem with the respond with quote button...

This seems like a good, thoughtful answer to me. Legislation also sets up the court system to try the cases and provide an opportunity for attorneys and a jury of peers to tailor the consequence to the individual offender as well.

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 3:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
CTS said "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."

Sorry for the double post: I'm having a problem with the respond with quote button...

This seems like a good, thoughtful answer to me. Legislation also sets up the court system to try the cases and provide an opportunity for attorneys and a jury of peers to tailor the consequence to the individual offender as well.

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 4:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If you are doing it to me, it's violence. If I am doing it to myself, it's not.
That sounds like a good rule of thumb.

While this may be a good generalization, like un-"violent"legislation, it also still fails to cover the more pathologic end of the spectrum. What if a child is physically assaulting their sibling? What if a child is physically assaulting themself (such as head banging against the wall, cutting themselves, or worse? What if the child is destroying property (breaking windows, punching holes in walls)? That is where some form of force is required. Some parents end up having to call the police. Some parents end up having to have their child placed out of home (with another responsible family member, hospital, juvenile detention, foster care, group home, wilderness camp, etc).

The parallel to legislation is that most of the time, you won't have to use physical force/restraint, because people usually comply with the consequences. Violence (in the form of restraining/arresting/imprisonment) becomes necessary for those who violently do not comply, as has been noted.

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 5:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"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.

Yes, but as a parallel to legislation, what do you do if privilege restriction doesn't work? That is where you may need to consider increasing the amount of restriction/consequences (also -- privilege restriction could include "grounding", which could be considered "house arrest", which may be considered "force" in this argument). The parallel is, what do you do when the guy keeps parking in the handicapped spots even though he has been ticketed numerous times. I think in that example, Can't take sky mentioned the consequences would get ever increased... continues to speed.

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 5:38 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I don't think we disagree. I've never found a way to be a parent that doesn't involve some degree of violence in the way of forced confinement/imprisonment.

I'm sure there are people who DON'T escalate to violence, but I've never found a way to make that workable.

From the time my son was placed in his first crib or pen, I've been imprisoning him against his will. This proceeded to timeouts and 'go to your room.'

I approach parenting the same way I approach government. I see some violence (legislation enforceable by compulsion) as necessary but lamentable, and to be limited wherever possible.

--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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 8:43 AM

NIKI2

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

Quote:
if you agreed to it, well then it's only right folk hold you to that

Ahh, but that’s not the question. The question is, if you break the law, will force be applied? It has nothing to do with whether you agreed to the law or not...if you BREAK IT...

So you have to apply that to children, too: Your child wants to hurl rocks at the neighbor’s windows. How do you stop him? Putting him in his room (“incarcerating” him) doesn’t work, docking his salary (“economic sanctions”) doesn’t work...essentially NOTHING works. Take it to the extreme; if a child refuses, absolutely refuses any method of getting them to stop breaking windows, what is the FINAL answer...remember, you can’t get the child to cooperate, no matter what other methods you use. Turn the child out of the home? He still refuses to stop. Turn him over to the authorities? Well, the end there is obvious...you have to take the question to the ultimate extreme to answer it.

Ooops, I see Mala answered it for me. Oh, well...maybe putting it in my context helped...or not. The point is, you have to take parenting to the furthest extreme possible, as CTTS is taking “legislation” (which we should call “laws”, because legislation IS law in its final result.

You may see the problem with the question itself. It’s extreme; it assumes laws always taken to the extreme. I don’t think it’s valid in that respect. If the question were “Is legislation always = to force/violence”?—no, even that wouldn’t work. I guess you’d have to name me a society where some form of law is not enforced, if the person breaking that law resists to the very end. The only one I can think of is the Quakers and shunning, but that is really only valid in that the only option the resisting person has is to go elsewhere—where he will be required to abide by the laws of somewhere else. I have a couple of Friends of 10-years’ friendship who are still on my website and who I’ve visited. They live in Washington; they agree to the “laws” under which they live; ergo, despite their RELIGIOUS affiliation with Quakers, if the break the law in Washington, same thing...

So it’s kind of a moot point, to me, I guess. My response would be “why do you ask this question?”, because asking it indicates something beyond the question. Whether agreed to or not, from society to parenting, breaking of laws, taken to the extreme, require enforcement...or I guess expulsion. But expulsion TODAY means going somewhere else, where there are laws which are enforced if they’re broken, etc.

Even “all legislation enforced by violence = violence” doesn’t make sense to me. “Violence = violence”? I understand where you’re GOING with this, but legislation = laws, so again, taken to your extreme, laws = violence.

Quote:
When I throw a tantrum because you won't buy me candy, I am causing the pain to myself. (Doing it to myself.)

Anthony, you’re still not getting it. I tried that earlier, saying if someone resists with violence, they have caused the violence to come about. IF the child throws a tantrum, and the “law” is enforced, that’s still violence. It’s not about how it came about, it’s got to be argued whether, taken to the end result, laws themselves equal violence. Not that any other means might bring about nonviolence, the subject in question has to resist EVERY form of compliance, to the very end.

Again, CTTS, you re leaving behind your original question. Emotional pain doesn’t come into it—if the child absolutely refuses to comply, no matter what, it’s just like an adult breaking the law. You HAVE to take it to your end result, and if you can show me how causing a child to obey, if, just like an adult handed a ticket or anything else, what you do doesn’t cause them to obey, what is the final, end result? It has to be some form of enforcement, and you said yourself, “enforcement” = force.

Do you see my problem with your question? Withholding privileges, disapproval...these all equate to similar methods used when adults break the law. What if those things DO NOT bring about compliance? You have to take it to the very end to make it equivalent to “legislation”, breaking the law.

Yes, Mala got it:

Quote:
The parallel to legislation is that most of the time, you won't have to use physical force/restraint, because people usually comply with the consequences. Violence (in the form of restraining/arresting/imprisonment) becomes necessary for those who violently do not comply, as has been noted.

Exactly what I pointed out a couple of times before, but it was rejected, because if the nonviolent consequence is resisted, etc., etc., right to the very end result.

I think the fallacy is in the question itself, and the insistence that it be taken to the furthest end result if nothing else works. If you take either parenting or laws to a point where the “criminal” flatly refuses to stop doing whatever it is, it HAS to end up some kind of “enFORCEment". You can't make it different for a child than for an adult; if anything except force causes the child to stop, then anything except force could make an adult stop.

Am I making enough sense for you to follow what I'm trying to say? If you want to ask a question that doesn't take any "law" or parenting "rule" to the end extreme, you have to ask it differently.

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

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 8:58 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Anthony, you’re still not getting it. I tried that earlier, saying if someone resists with violence, they have caused the violence to come about. IF the child throws a tantrum, and the “law” is enforced, that’s still violence."

Hello,

I think I'm getting it quite well. I was responding to the statement that withholding goodies from people was violence. I stated it was not. If someone gets upset because I won't give them goodies, that's not violence.

HOWEVER if I spank them or confine them for throwing a tantrum, that IS violence.

And yes, Niki, the point of all of this is that, taken to its extreme, Legislation tends to Equal violence. It doesn't matter if most people peacably comply. We are establishing an essential premise. Law Enforcement = Violence and the threat of violence, except in rare and bizarre societies.

On the topic of child rearing, I would hazard that even Frem, advocate for children's rights, may find himself using violence against children. EVEN IF IT IS ONLY TO SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES. (i.e. Restraining a child from walking/crawling into traffic, despite that being their clear and willful intent.)

This is not yet a debate about the necessity of violence, nor the merits of violence, nor even is it yet a debate about proper child-rearing techniques. It's just to establish the basic definition for future discussion.

If you want to ask, "So What?" then we need to start a new discussion.

--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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 9:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I don't think we disagree. I've never found a way to be a parent that doesn't involve some degree of violence in the way of forced confinement/imprisonment.

Yes. I think we are applying CTS's logic consistently by saying that parenting does involve "violence" (or perhaps better described as "forcing your will") on another human being. I didn't mean to come across as disagreeing.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that we adults at least get to claim that someone voted for the the legislators, whereas children can't even say that they voted for their parents or most of the rules. They were born into the parental "tyranny"... And, touching on Frem's point, I do agree that some parents really aren't fit to be parents, but I would add that children and especially adolescents are going to test limits, no matter how good the parent is. In fact, I might be worried about the child who didn't test any limits, and, of course, I'm frustrated with the parent that doesn't consistently set the limits as well.

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 9:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Anthony, you’re still not getting it. I tried that earlier, saying if someone resists with violence, they have caused the violence to come about. IF the child throws a tantrum, and the “law” is enforced, that’s still violence."

Hello,

I think I'm getting it quite well. I was responding to the statement that withholding goodies from people was violence. I stated it was not.

I don't know who said that withholding candy was violence. Are you thinking it was me? Here is some of the exchange having to do with candy.

Quote:

"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".

I was responding to the CTS's statement that parenting equals violence if it means enforcing rules with violence or even emotional pain...

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 10:35 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Yes, I was just clarifying that it is possible to withhold goodies and thereby cause emotional pain (privilege removal, saying no) without being violent. This is because essentially, the emotional pain is caused entirely by the subject. They covet something, they can't get it, they get upset. This is important to the 'shunning' aspect of nonviolent law enforcement. It puts someone in a position to suffer, but not by inflicting anything upon them. It is simply the witholding of courtesies.

It was this discussion and realization that made me suddenly understand what was going on in my father's head when he did certain things in my youth. I have been taught by example, and it was subtle enough that I didn't notice until now what philosophy he was imparting to me.

I hope to discuss this in another thread soon, once we all agree on this premise and definition and move on to the "So What" stage of the discussion.

--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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 12:01 PM

NIKI2

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

I agree. I guess I've been at the "so what?" phase for a while now.

Laws, if broken and the person who breaks them takes it to the ultimate destination, DOES require force.

Parenting, if the child misbehaves and takes it to the ultimate destination, DOES require force.

So what? Isn't there a better discussion to be had, and what is the point of this one in the first place?

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

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 12:16 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think someone wanted to have a discussion, but needed to establish this baseline definition first.

--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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
My response would be “why do you ask this question?”, because asking it indicates something beyond the question.

Indeed.

Once we realize all laws are violent, we should be careful to only prohibit behavior that deserve violent retaliations. Violent things like murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. It means using legislation as a last resort instead of the first resort. It's a different mentality.

As Frem said so succinctly, "Don't make any laws that you're not willing to kill for."

If I am not willing to kill Bob for parking in the wrong spot, then I shouldn't make a law against parking in that spot. I should just make suggestions.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:39 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Why don't we open this up to new threads dealing with important aspects of legislation and parenting specifically, using this as a foundation?

--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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Well, the end there is obvious...you have to take the question to the ultimate extreme to answer it.

Please allow me to clarify. I am not saying the ultimate extreme is violent. I am not saying the first line of enforcement is non-violent, then enforcement BECOMES violent in only extreme cases.

I am saying in most cases, Consequence A is already violent. The violence simply escalates with each consequence, becoming MORE and MORE violent. Enforcement then starts with minor violence and escalates to extreme violence.

Let me define violence again in a different way to clarify my position:
1) Physical force or physical confiscation of private property to make someone act against his will
2) THREAT of physical force or confiscation
3) Threat of extreme physical violence should the subject fight back in ANY way.
3) Extreme emotional pain (or threat thereof). Not all emotional pain is violent. Not all emotional abuse is violent.

This is what I perceive to be violent:
--Fines and physical confiscation of property
--Physically kidnapping someone and putting them in a cage
--Beating, tasering, torturing, and killing (obviously)

Now I am going to say something VERY important, so please read my lips. I am not saying (not yet anyway) that ALL violence is morally wrong or bad. It can be argued that some violence is a necessary evil, or that some violence might actually be good for society.

If we can agree on what violence is, and that enforced legislation is violence, then we can go on to argue which kind of violence/legislation is acceptable or justifiable or necessary.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 3:00 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Yes, let's go on to the next discussion. This horse is ready for the glue factory.

--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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 3:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
I think we are applying CTS's logic consistently by saying that parenting does involve "violence" (or perhaps better described as "forcing your will") on another human being.

If I may say again, it is a very good point. Logical consistency in definitions and values is critical.

I've given this some thought today.

I think the word, "governing" is more comparable to "parenting" than "legislation." If I may venture a new analogy.

"Parenting" is to "governing"
"Family rules enforced by spanking, fining, and grounding" is to "legislation."

Is it possible to parent responsibly without family rules enforced by spanking, fining, and grounding (time out)? I think so.

Is it possible to govern responsibly without legislation? I think so.

Do I think that family rules enforced by spanking, fining, and grounding is immoral or "bad"? Not necessarily. I think it is not ideal, but not necessarily immoral.

Do I think that legislation is immoral or "bad"? Not necessarily. I think it is not ideal, but not necessarily immoral.

I hope that clarifies where I am coming from.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 3:02 PM