3 ms·

Physical violence is the last resort for enforcement of all laws. That does not mean that it makes sense to equate every government action to physical violence.

oleganza 14y ago
Lets say, I come to you and ask for $1000. If you don't pay me before March 1st, 2013, I'll send you a reminder. If you don't send money within a week, I'll send you another reminder. If you still don't send money, I'll ask a friend of mine to come to your door and politely ask again. If you still reject my "offer", I'll send another friend with a gun who will ask you again. If you don't open the door, he will kick it out and search for money in your house. If you try to stop him, he will kill you. As a last resort, of course. We both know that we know the whole chain of threats. Doesn't my demand for your money equate with physical violence? If not, how short should be the chain of such persuasion until the gunpoint, so it's considered equal to threat of physical violence?
- ams6110 14y ago
  They are more likely to simply garnish your wages or seize your bank account than they are to break down your door and go searching around in your dresser drawers for money. But they will get their money, one way or another. That point stands.
- colanderman 14y ago
  If you try to stop him, he will kill you. Assuming "him" is the government, no, he won't, unless you try to stop him violently. The government doesn't kill people who don't pay taxes. Your analogy doesn't work.
  - ctdonath 14y ago
    The Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents were about not paying taxes. The Supreme Court said "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." In these cases, heavily armed agents raided homes for want of $200 in NFA manufacturing taxes; whether heavily-armored men crashing thru windows carrying automatic weapons actually fired the first shot, or baited the occupants into "threatening behavior", is irrelevant: the government killed people who didn't pay taxes.
  - oleganza 14y ago
    So you can keep a key of your vault with your unpaid taxes and no one will try to take it from you by force? Bank manager will not go to jail if he does not make a wire transfer from your account to IRS?
oleganza 14y ago
And if you tell me that the law is a magical piece of paper that transforms morality of people it describes, then how it is different from my personal law written on my own magical piece of paper? The difference here is that I do not propose killing you because I have no idea how can that be justified (even in a self-defense case - I'll just have no choice, but when there is no choice, there is no capacity for being moral or immoral). But others think they can justify the violence and build the whole concept of justice on top of it. Which is rather immoral because their justification is very far from being 100% logical, solid and accepted by everyone.
- nhaehnle 14y ago
  I agree that government should be prohibited from killing anyone, just like regular people should be prohibited from killing anyone (the self-defense case is different, even from a moral point of view, because all major moral systems distinguish between attack and defense). Most democratic governments manage to work just fine without threatening to kill anyone. The death penalty is the exception rather than the rule in civilized societies. Also, you will find that a vast majority of people accept the use of force by government in the vast majority of cases where it actually happens in practice (which is to stop violent crime). Yes, government uses force in other situations. And usually, that is followed by a public outcry when it becomes known. And when the people actually agree that this use of force is inappropriate, laws do tend to change - see the history of civil disobedience around the world as an example.
  - oleganza 14y ago
    Death penalty as described in a law is irrelevant. What is relevant is a threat of murder when police/court requires you to do something. Pay a fee, pay taxes, go to jail etc. And this threat of murder is very real and is used in enforcement of every single law. Government never threatens you with ostracism and defamation. It always threatens you with death if you do not obey.
    - nhaehnle 14y ago
      I call bullshit. Outside of a death penalty, government does not threaten you with murder, but with prison in the worst case. Government will actually try not to kill you, even if you resist arrest (note: I was once arrested - or is it detained? - for political reasons. I'm not sure about the legal terms in English). Obviously, if you barricade yourself in with machine guns or more, it might come to a stand-off where you are killed. But ask yourself this: If it comes to that, how many people will still think you were acting reasonably relative to any standard? The only way you could possibly talk about a threat of murder by government (in countries that do not have the death penalty) is if you're essentially saying: "There is a possibility for me to behave in a way that is so far out of the social norm and involves my own use of physical violence to such an extent that some government agent may end up killing me. This is what I mean by 'threat of murder'." But then the term "threat of murder" becomes entirely meaningless, because by that standard, virtually every person in the world threatens you with murder every day. Think about it: There is a possibility for you to behave in a way that is so far out of the social norm and involves your use of physical violence to such an extent that any random stranger may end up killing you - in attempted self-defense against your own violence. So: Do you believe every person in the world is latently threatening you with murder? Because if you truly, genuinely believe that government generally threatens you with murder (independently of a death penalty), then you must logically hold that belief as well. Now to be fair, I think I have some understanding of where you are coming from. I got acquainted with some far leftist/anarchist groups during my undergraduate. This feeling of being up against an all-powerful and overreaching evil can be a powerful social glue. This is what they felt, and I suppose it affected me as well, though to a smaller extent. But I grew up. I sincerely hope for your own sanity that there is some part of your mind that recognizes how ridiculously extremist you previously stated position is.
ctdonath 14y ago
It makes sense to not forget that every government action IS backed up by threat of violence. If the "no arial photography" law passes, flying a quadcopter around gathering imagery becomes illegal. When police show up to fine or arrest you for doing so, they do it in a manner & reputation implying physical violence will follow if you don't comply and persist in violating the law. Ergo the question for legislators & citizens is: why is arial photography deemed harmful enough that doing so warrants threat, even invocation, of physical violence based on simple engaging in that activity outside of any other warranted factor? (To compare: why does NYC go so far as threaten, even carry out, physical violence against a restaurant owner for selling a 20oz soda?) Viewed this way, one is reminded of the vital imperative of freedom & liberty. It makes sense to ask why a government is willing to resort to physical violence for enforcement, rather than "no harm done, let it go".
- oleganza 14y ago
  Sidenote: I don't think it is a good idea to wonder why and how government should use violence. First, people around you may be asked why they think anyone can use any amount of violence and when. Before you get a satisfactory answer to that question, it's meaningless to discuss what the government can or cannot do. Government is just a bunch of specific people, particular case of a general rule "person A can kill person B when XYZ".
  - yew 14y ago
    Government is a specific case of that general rule if and only if group decision making is isomorphic to individual decision making. The idea behind government is that 1) it is occasionally necessary to impose some course of action on individuals or groups, 2) force or threat of force is a necessary component of said imposition, and 3) making the decision to use force is safer (under the assumption that there is in fact some 'correct' course of action) if you first discuss that decision with as many people as possible than if you decide by yourself. Whether or not that all holds would appear to be up for debate.
    - oleganza 14y ago
AutoCorrect 14y ago
sure does, because the threat of physical violence is what ensures the laws (that the government wishes to enforce) are enforced.
baddox 14y ago
> Physical violence is the last resort for enforcement of all laws. That's true, but even though all laws are enforced by violence, there's still a notable difference between laws that prohibit violence ("don't murder or else we will use violence against you") and tax laws ("give us money or we will use violence against you").

oleganza 14y ago

Lets say, I come to you and ask for $1000. If you don't pay me before March 1st, 2013, I'll send you a reminder. If you don't send money within a week, I'll send you another reminder. If you still don't send money, I'll ask a friend of mine to come to your door and politely ask again. If you still reject my "offer", I'll send another friend with a gun who will ask you again. If you don't open the door, he will kick it out and search for money in your house. If you try to stop him, he will kill you. As a last resort, of course. We both know that we know the whole chain of threats. Doesn't my demand for your money equate with physical violence? If not, how short should be the chain of such persuasion until the gunpoint, so it's considered equal to threat of physical violence?

ams6110 14y ago
They are more likely to simply garnish your wages or seize your bank account than they are to break down your door and go searching around in your dresser drawers for money. But they will get their money, one way or another. That point stands.
colanderman 14y ago
If you try to stop him, he will kill you. Assuming "him" is the government, no, he won't, unless you try to stop him violently. The government doesn't kill people who don't pay taxes. Your analogy doesn't work.
- ctdonath 14y ago
  The Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents were about not paying taxes. The Supreme Court said "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." In these cases, heavily armed agents raided homes for want of $200 in NFA manufacturing taxes; whether heavily-armored men crashing thru windows carrying automatic weapons actually fired the first shot, or baited the occupants into "threatening behavior", is irrelevant: the government killed people who didn't pay taxes.
- oleganza 14y ago
  So you can keep a key of your vault with your unpaid taxes and no one will try to take it from you by force? Bank manager will not go to jail if he does not make a wire transfer from your account to IRS?

oleganza 14y ago

And if you tell me that the law is a magical piece of paper that transforms morality of people it describes, then how it is different from my personal law written on my own magical piece of paper? The difference here is that I do not propose killing you because I have no idea how can that be justified (even in a self-defense case - I'll just have no choice, but when there is no choice, there is no capacity for being moral or immoral). But others think they can justify the violence and build the whole concept of justice on top of it. Which is rather immoral because their justification is very far from being 100% logical, solid and accepted by everyone.

nhaehnle 14y ago
I agree that government should be prohibited from killing anyone, just like regular people should be prohibited from killing anyone (the self-defense case is different, even from a moral point of view, because all major moral systems distinguish between attack and defense). Most democratic governments manage to work just fine without threatening to kill anyone. The death penalty is the exception rather than the rule in civilized societies. Also, you will find that a vast majority of people accept the use of force by government in the vast majority of cases where it actually happens in practice (which is to stop violent crime). Yes, government uses force in other situations. And usually, that is followed by a public outcry when it becomes known. And when the people actually agree that this use of force is inappropriate, laws do tend to change - see the history of civil disobedience around the world as an example.
- oleganza 14y ago
  Death penalty as described in a law is irrelevant. What is relevant is a threat of murder when police/court requires you to do something. Pay a fee, pay taxes, go to jail etc. And this threat of murder is very real and is used in enforcement of every single law. Government never threatens you with ostracism and defamation. It always threatens you with death if you do not obey.
  - nhaehnle 14y ago
    I call bullshit. Outside of a death penalty, government does not threaten you with murder, but with prison in the worst case. Government will actually try not to kill you, even if you resist arrest (note: I was once arrested - or is it detained? - for political reasons. I'm not sure about the legal terms in English). Obviously, if you barricade yourself in with machine guns or more, it might come to a stand-off where you are killed. But ask yourself this: If it comes to that, how many people will still think you were acting reasonably relative to any standard? The only way you could possibly talk about a threat of murder by government (in countries that do not have the death penalty) is if you're essentially saying: "There is a possibility for me to behave in a way that is so far out of the social norm and involves my own use of physical violence to such an extent that some government agent may end up killing me. This is what I mean by 'threat of murder'." But then the term "threat of murder" becomes entirely meaningless, because by that standard, virtually every person in the world threatens you with murder every day. Think about it: There is a possibility for you to behave in a way that is so far out of the social norm and involves your use of physical violence to such an extent that any random stranger may end up killing you - in attempted self-defense against your own violence. So: Do you believe every person in the world is latently threatening you with murder? Because if you truly, genuinely believe that government generally threatens you with murder (independently of a death penalty), then you must logically hold that belief as well. Now to be fair, I think I have some understanding of where you are coming from. I got acquainted with some far leftist/anarchist groups during my undergraduate. This feeling of being up against an all-powerful and overreaching evil can be a powerful social glue. This is what they felt, and I suppose it affected me as well, though to a smaller extent. But I grew up. I sincerely hope for your own sanity that there is some part of your mind that recognizes how ridiculously extremist you previously stated position is.

ctdonath 14y ago

It makes sense to not forget that every government action IS backed up by threat of violence. If the "no arial photography" law passes, flying a quadcopter around gathering imagery becomes illegal. When police show up to fine or arrest you for doing so, they do it in a manner & reputation implying physical violence will follow if you don't comply and persist in violating the law. Ergo the question for legislators & citizens is: why is arial photography deemed harmful enough that doing so warrants threat, even invocation, of physical violence based on simple engaging in that activity outside of any other warranted factor? (To compare: why does NYC go so far as threaten, even carry out, physical violence against a restaurant owner for selling a 20oz soda?) Viewed this way, one is reminded of the vital imperative of freedom & liberty. It makes sense to ask why a government is willing to resort to physical violence for enforcement, rather than "no harm done, let it go".

oleganza 14y ago
Sidenote: I don't think it is a good idea to wonder why and how government should use violence. First, people around you may be asked why they think anyone can use any amount of violence and when. Before you get a satisfactory answer to that question, it's meaningless to discuss what the government can or cannot do. Government is just a bunch of specific people, particular case of a general rule "person A can kill person B when XYZ".
- yew 14y ago
  Government is a specific case of that general rule if and only if group decision making is isomorphic to individual decision making. The idea behind government is that 1) it is occasionally necessary to impose some course of action on individuals or groups, 2) force or threat of force is a necessary component of said imposition, and 3) making the decision to use force is safer (under the assumption that there is in fact some 'correct' course of action) if you first discuss that decision with as many people as possible than if you decide by yourself. Whether or not that all holds would appear to be up for debate.
  - oleganza 14y ago

AutoCorrect 14y ago

sure does, because the threat of physical violence is what ensures the laws (that the government wishes to enforce) are enforced.

baddox 14y ago

> Physical violence is the last resort for enforcement of all laws. That's true, but even though all laws are enforced by violence, there's still a notable difference between laws that prohibit violence ("don't murder or else we will use violence against you") and tax laws ("give us money or we will use violence against you").