Difference between Force and Violence
Book Short Title : Achieving a more voluntary society
Chapter Title : Difference between Force and Violence
Short Chapter Overview
Morality based on the objective physical consequences to one's life or health, autonomy and knowledge. The interconnection between your own life, health, autonomy and knowledge and those of others. Using violence on other people harms your own life, health and autonomy. Helping improve the health, autonomy and knowledge of other people can help improve your own health, autonomy and knowledge if they are your allies. Violence is force that is not defensive in nature.
In the introduction I claimed a moral viewpoint will be used based on the physical consequences to one's own health, autonomy and knowledge. And that protecting other people's health, autonomy and knowledge is important to help protect your own health, autonomy and knowledge.
You could live alone but people who live alone do not have resources to maintain their health and also it is not possible to live alone safe from harassment by involuntary government so long as the society is in a state of delusion about the physical consequences of violence.
When you live in a group of other people who care for your well being then improving their health, autonomy and knowledge puts them in a better position to improve your health, autonomy and knowledge. By using violence which harms their health, knowledge and autonomy they will be less able to and possibly less willing to care for you to improve your health, knowledge and autonomy.
Having violence and or the threat of violence inflicted upon someone reduces their health, autonomy and or knowledge. The only way for someone to protect their own health, autonomy and knowledge is to live in a society with certain elements.
Element 0 : All or most people in such a society would not want violence or the threat of violence inflicted upon themselves because it harms their health, autonomy and or knowledge.
Element 1: In this society people would use defensive force to protect against violence done to other people and not themselves only. Otherwise there would be nothing to discourage violent people from targeting them next.
Element 2 : People in such a society would refrain from using violence because they know if they use violence then defensive force would be used against them because of element 1.
Element 3 : Each person would have to be aware that all or most of the other people in their society understanding and living according to element 1 would be in their own self interest if they wanted to minimize the amount of violence inflicted upon themselves. Each person would also have to be aware that in a society where most people understand and live according to element 1 that it would be in each person's best interest to live according to element 2 if they want to minimize the amount of violence inflicted upon them.
Bob is a fictitious character in a hypothetical example
Bob wants to live in a society where murderers and attempted murderers are sent to jail. Bob realizes that in such a society he would have to avoid murdering or trying to murder people in order to avoid going to jail himself. Bob also realizes that in order for that society to function everyone else must understand that viewpoint and therefore choose to use defensive force against and avoid violence. If people in that society fail to see things from that viewpoint then Bob knows he will not be safe. Therefore Bob tries to educate people about the physical consequences of violence.
Bob finds out that some people in his own society have delusions that the good intentions of police, military or security persons following the orders of a authority figure while shield people from the physical consequences of violence but it will not. They believe that murdering people will not be harmful to their own autonomy and freedom provided the condition that an authority figure told them to do so is met. Bob realizes he must help them understand that someone who is murdered is equally dead whether they are murdered by someone following the orders of a authority figure or murdered for some other motive. Bob realizes he must either leave to somewhere that society can not reach him or change the viewpoint of that society if he wishes to protect his own, health, autonomy and knowledge. Bob realizes there is no where to leave to because most of the people in the known world think like that. Bob decides to try to persuade everyone to change their viewpoint but to put extra effort to persuading police, military and security persons.
You can substitute the word "Murder", with "Kidnap" or all sorts of other nasty violent actions or threats of violence and "dead" with whatever the consequences of those actions or threats would be that would result in a loss of health, autonomy or knowledge.
Knowledge is important because acting on the wrong viewpoint results in violence which results in a loss of autonomy or health. This does not mean you need to avoid listening to wrong viewpoints out of fear of becoming violent. Instead you need to be willing to listen to multiple viewpoints understanding that in order to find correct viewpoints you have to risk the possibility of listening to wrong viewpoints. After listening to viewpoints you have a duty to evaluate them and try to figure out which viewpoints are right and wrong. Or more precisely which portions of which viewpoints are right and wrong under what context.
The purpose of the rest of this chapter is to help understand the difference between defensive force and violence in greater detail
The Rest of the Chapter in Greater Detail
Definition of force in this chapter is not the same as in physics
In this book force and violence have specific meanings that may or may not be used elsewhere depending on context and in this chapter the definition of force from physics is not being used.
Mark Passio's definition of violence
Mark Passio consider's an action to be violent if you start a fight but defensive force if you did not start a fight. Mark Passio does not consider defensive force to be an act of violence. I do not know if Mark Passio considers violence to be a type of force.
His definition is explained in more detail in this video.
Mark Passio - Natural Law Seminar - New Haven, CT - Part 3 of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=204aGDVa3Vw&t=1770s
Natural Law Seminar - New Haven, CT
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnzMmEt4pIb985hO8sonHThhauAyn_doB
https://web.archive.org/web/20220926141934/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=204aGDVa3Vw
Definition of force in this chapter of this book
Force is the act of physically harming someone such as shooting them, punching them or poisoning them or physically controlling the location of their body such as putting them in a cage, tying them to a chair, handcuffing them or picking them up and moving their body somewhere else or the attempt to do any of these things.
Difference in definitions between violent force and defensive force in this book
"Violent force" will simply be called "violence" in this chapter. All violence is force but not all force is violence. Violence refers to force that is initiated against someone who did not use force (or the threat of force) against someone else without their consent first and that is not done to prevent accidental or deliberate harm. Defensive force is force that is used to prevent harm or prevent detainment of someone without their consent. Defensive force can also be any force that is used against someone who initiated violence or initiated the threat of violence first.
Why the terms, coercion, non-aggression principle and zero aggression principle are only rarely used in this book and only for the purpose of referring to other people's works. Why the longer term "aggressive initiation of violence" is frequently used instead of the shorter term "violence" in other chapters of this book.
If you do not care about the motivations for avoiding certain terminologies then you can skip this very long section. And resume reading after the next section signified by the next section description in bold font.
"The non-aggression principle (NAP), also called the non-aggression axiom, is a concept in which aggression, defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference (violating or breaching conduct) against either an individual, their property[note 1] or against promises (contracts) for which the aggressor is liable and in which the individual is a counterparty, is inherently wrong.[1][2] There is no single or universal interpretation or definition of the NAP, with different definitions varying in regards to how to treat intellectual property, force, abortion, and other topics.
The non-aggression principle is considered by some to be an essential idea in libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism or minarchism"
https://web.archive.org/web/20221212205301/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
Non-Aggression Principle
LiberationAnimation
https://web.archive.org/web/20221110025156/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHe4OQ4bY4o
Throughout much of the rest of the book ( outside this chapter ) I will call violence by the longer phrase, "the aggressive initiation of violence." This is for two reasons. First, this is because people reading other chapters of the book might not have read or remembered the difference between force and violence as defined in this chapter. Second, this has to do with the "non aggression principle" ( NAP ) or the "zero aggression principle" taught by many libertarians, minarchists, voluntaryists and anarchists.
The non aggression principle is sometimes stated that it is morally wrong to initiate coercion. Coercion would include force, threats, lies or theft in some definitions.
Trespassing is sometimes considered a form of coercion involving, force, threats and or theft. Trespassing is sometimes viewed as putting someone in a situation in which they are threatened with the potential of being attacked by a trespasser. Trespassing is also sometimes viewed as a form of theft.
According to such definitions of the non aggression principle it is usually not considered morally wrong to use coercion to defend someone against someone else who first initiated coercion.
Some anarcho-pacifists would disagree and say you should not even use coercion to defend someone in any situation ever. I say anarcho-pacifist instead of merely pacifist because support for a involuntary government is ideologically incompatible with endorsing that all people are morally obligated to live a pacifist lifestyle. Not all anarcho-pacifists claim that everyone is obligated to live a pacifist lifestyle, but every person who advocates that everyone is morally obligated to live a pacifist lifestyle is a anarcho-pacifist whether they know they are or not. Someone can live a pacifist lifestyle for them-self without endorsing that all other people are morally obligated to live a pacifist lifestyle. In other words, someone can choose to live a pacifist lifestyle without saying that it is morally wrong for other people to use coercion defensively.
I do not advocate a pacifist worldview but believe a pacifist lifestyle is less harmful to the freedom of humanity than a lifestyle based on allegiance to a one world involuntary government.
The non aggression principle is rarely sufficiently explained in the issue of whether or not preventing someone from being indirectly harmed is more important than avoiding theft. There are also many problems with the term "theft" involved in the non aggression principle. Most people who say people should not steal have not sufficiently contemplated the reality that someone has to own something before it can be stolen from them. The non aggression principle when used alone without additional moral foundations, fails to define who owns what so anyone can know what theft actually is. Sometimes people add on additional foundational moral claims to the non aggression principle to explain how to know who owns what. In this book those types of foundational moral claims are called "property convention systems."
Nonetheless hearing about the non aggression principle even in a insufficient manner is a good starting point and people can later be filled in on more sufficient details of ethical nuance.
The non aggression principle is either lacking in sufficient nuance to deal with matters of covert physical harm involving environmental issues or is rarely sufficiently explained in relation to such issues. Such environmental issues include but are not necessarily limited to poisonous pollutants, the potential extinction of species and pathogens.
As part of the non aggression principle the term "initiation" is often used in definitions. This is similar to the concept that it can potentially matter who starts or initiates a fight. Because the non aggression principle or zero aggression principle is either insufficient or is sometimes insufficiently defined it will not be used in this book except when referencing other people's works who use the phrases non aggression principle or zero aggression principle. However as a reminder to those familiar with such works I will replace the term "violence" with the longer phrase "aggressive initiation of violence" throughout much of this book outside this chapter.
When explaining the non aggression principle the term coercion is often used and a distinction is made between someone initiating coercion and defending against the aggressive initiation of coercion.
In some context the definition of force used here is the same definition as physical coercion but in other context coercion implies compelling someone to do something without their consent. Some court systems might potentially have different definitions about whether or not self defense is considered to be coercion. Coercion might be related to duress, undue influence, or soft "mind control" when it comes to overlapping areas involving cult psychology and legal ethics. If I used the term coercion this would potentially result in great confusion because of pre-existing legal definitions and because soft "mind control" is frequently discussed in this book. Some people might only associate coercion with physical force and or the threat of physical force while others might only associate coercion with soft and or hard "mind control" and still others might associate coercion with both.
I also wish to make a distinction between different methods to unethically influence someone through "unethical behavior." Which is why I split "unethical behavior" into separate categories of violence, the threat of violence, unethical communication and stealing. This categorical system distinctly separates physical violence as different from unethical communication which is of utmost importance. Unethical communication has a specific set of definitions explained elsewhere in this book. This distinction between unethical communication and physical violence is of utmost importance because disbelieving in fictional news stories told by "the story tellers" would not hurt you but disbelieving in real physical bullets would. Using the term coercion is problematic because it does not make a clear distinction between violence and unethical communication.
For these reasons you will only find the term "coercion" in this chapter of this book except possibly when citing reference to the works of someone else who uses the term "coercion" in other chapters of the book.
Resume reading here
A violent person might not consent to receiving defensive force but that does not make defensive force violent
Obviously in many cases the person who started a fight is willing to harm or detain someone else but does not consent to being harmed or detained them-self but in such cases using force against them is defensive if they used violence first.
Defensive force can be used against someone who is not deliberately and knowingly attempting to commit violence in order to prevent accidental harm
Defensive force can be used against someone who is not attempting to commit violence such as pushing someone to prevent them from accidentally getting run over by a car without asking them for consent because there is not enough time to do so without them being run over or hypothetically switching which train tracks a train is on to prevent one group of people from dying even though it might mean another group would die or as has been claimed to occur in ancient history when people threw stones at a leper to prevent them from giving you leprosy if they refused to listen to leave when people tried other non forceful means to persuade them.
I endorse using force to do the minimal level of harm necessary for defense
I endorse using defensive force to do the minimal level of harm necessary because you can not know the motives of the person who you think is using violence and they might think they are using defensive force even though you think they are using violence and because even if you know they are trying to harm you other people who are not there might not know and may be more likely to use force on you or use more severe force against you if you use more force than necessary.
Difference between murder and killing
For the purpose of definitions in this book all murder is killing but not all killing is murder. Murder in this book refers to intentionally killing someone by initiating violence instead of using defensive force.
Debate about if using excessive force is or is not murder
A debate might also be had if murder would include using a type of defensive force to intentionally kill someone when a option to use defensive force or persuasion which would not kill someone would be possible in order to achieve the same defensive goal. Understanding that fine distinction is not necessary in order to understand the main points of this chapter.
Reasons for opposition to the death penalty of individuals captured by involuntary governments
I am not opposed to using lethal defensive force when non lethal defensive force is unavailable but I am opposed to involuntary governments using the death penalty as part of the court system because you can not undo the death penalty if the person is later found to be not guilty where as you can release them from a life sentence in jail. More importantly governments historically have had a very bad record of executing political enemies who did not murder anyone. Once someone is detained where they are in position to be executed by a court ruling lethal force is usually not necessary to prevent them from committing murder where as when they are not yet detained lethal force maybe necessary to prevent them from committing murder.
Three exceptions where the death penalty maybe the only means to prevent a greater number of deaths
There are three exceptions where I would not oppose the death penalty : the first being if it is physically impossible to detain someone for life and they will murder people if they escape or are released ; the second being if they will murder people while detained if not given the death penalty ; and the third being if it will take so much resources to detain them that redirecting the resources will cause at least one other person to die and if you release them they will murder someone.
Risk of prisoner murdering other prisoners. Risk of escaped prisoner committing murder.
These cases are extremely rare but there supposedly was one criminal who requested the death penalty but was not given it and started murdering other prisoners until he got tried for their murders and finally persuaded the courts to give him the death penalty and there are also supposedly some prisoners who repeatedly have escaped prison. Someone who has not committed murder or attempted murder and who repeatedly has escaped prison might not be dangerous but someone who has committed murder or attempted murder and has repeatedly escaped prison could reasonably be assumed to be dangerous.
Inability to receive resources to keep prisoner alive without causing the death of other people combined with risk that the prisoner will murder someone if released
As for executing prisoners because of a lack of resources, I do not believe that the United States has had such a shortage of resources, that providing resources to house someone on death penalty would cause the death of one or more other people any time in the entire 20th century including the so called great depression. Although people might have experienced starvation on a local scale during the dust bowl, if prisoners were not housed in the places starvation was occurring but imprisoned other locations where food was plentiful I do not believe it would have been necessary to execute a prisoner instead of feeding them to prevent the death of someone else for reasons related to resource distribution. As for the great depression, money becoming scarce for some people does not prevent plants from physically growing nor cause physical infrastructure such as manufacturing equipment that was already built to disappear.
However such a situation where feeding a prisoner instead of putting that prisoner to death could have caused the death of another person due to reallocation of resources could have occurred in the United States close to the time periods of the civil war and revolutionary war when people in the United States soil really were starving due to military actions that occurred in the United States soil according to mainstream United States history. Some people might advocate the death penalty so people can have more resources to live in extravagant luxury while falsely claiming the resources are being redirected to prevent the death of someone. People who were starving during the civil and revolutionary war might not have been able to simply relocate to another part of the United States to avoid starving because military people might have prevented them from just moving where ever they want to do to a war.
There is reason to oppose the death penalty even in a voluntary anarchist community or a society where the majority of people have an anarchist worldview
Many self labeled anarcho capitalists support something similar to a court system involving defense or security organizations and an arbitration process. An arbitration process is similar to what insurance agencies do if two people from two different agencies get in a car crash. Some anarcho capitalists believe in using a similar arbitration system as a replacement of a government court system. I will discuss arbitration and how it does not have to be limited to anarcho capitalism but can fit with other anarcho economic systems in another chapter of the book.
I would also oppose the death penalty in such a society because it is irreversible if a mistake is made.
Even if you would like other people to be executed it is in your best interest to oppose the death penalty if you do not want to be executed yourself
Even if you do not oppose the death penalty for people other than you, it is in your best interest if you do not want to receive the death penalty to oppose the death penalty in case you are wrongfully convicted for something you did not do.
I endorse better prison conditions, a higher percentage of life sentences for violent crimes and a lower percentage of the population imprisoned for non violent crimes
I would support more life sentences for violent crimes that currently get less than life sentences because if someone goes around violently attacking people, kidnapping people or forcibly raping people and they are released they might do it again. Because prisoner on prisoner violence is possible I support an option for solitary confinement for all prisoners who do not want a prison room mate. Because some people in prison were later found to not have committed the crimes they were accused of I support better prison conditions and believe these things would be affordable if less people were imprisoned for non violent crimes.
Someone's motives can not change the physical consequences of an action but someone's motives can influence whether or not they will do a action. In some cases people with mental illness or effected by drugs might do violent actions even though they are motivated to avoid violence. Discussion of drug use and mental illness and prison sentencing. Discussion of motivation and prison sentencing
Although the physical consequences of an action do not change depending on someone's motives, motives should still be considered when determining if someone should be imprisoned for a use of force. If someone believed the force they used was defensive they might be less likely to use violent force in the future and in some cases should not be imprisoned but if they believed the force they were using was violent putting them in prison maybe a good method to prevent them from doing violence in the future.
Someone with a permanent mental illness might do violent actions without knowing they are doing violence. If they can not know they are committing acts of violence because of mental illness having good intentions can not prevent them from committing acts of violence in the future unlike someone who intends to avoid violence and also is able to know whether or not their actions are violent. I think mental illness should not excuse someone from receiving a life sentence for violent actions in most cases because if their mental illness caused them to murder someone it might cause them to do so again if they are released. They could however receive a life sentence to a special mental hospital for the criminally insane with no option of being released, there is no reason this mental hospital could not have good quality food and accommodations to the degree possible without enabling them to have tools that can be used for escape or violence. An exception might be made if someone doped someone with drugs without their consent leading them to commit murder while under the influence of temporary drug induced mental illness but if someone intentionally used the drugs knowing the potential effects on the mind they should still be given a life sentence for murder.
A perspective in which fraud can be viewed as a violent act. Violence through fraud. Violent acts of fraud.
Fraud can be a violent act if you give people false information that would influence them to make decisions that would cause physical harm to themself without their consent. For example if someone gave someone a bottle of pills that they were told was a specific medicine but instead the pills were made out of a different chemical composition that was poisonous this would be a violent act of fraud.
Lying about past sexual history to someone before having sex with them can be an act of violence through fraud. If someone lies saying they never had sex with anyone else before having sex with them this could be an act of violence through fraud because someone might get a sexually transmitted disease that might have been avoided if they chose not to have sex with them if they knew their sexual history. If two people make an agreement not to have sex with other people and one of the individuals has sex with other people after the agreement and does not tell the other person before having sex with them this would be an act of violence through fraud for the same reason. If someone truly has a sexually transmitted disease and believe they have a sexually transmitted disease and tells someone else they do not have any sexually transmitted diseases before having sex with them this would be a deliberate act of violence through fraud.
If someone does not believe any of these lies and knows the truth the physical harm from the act of fraud can be potentially avoided. Someone who knows they are being offered poisoned pills by a liar or by someone who was tricked by a liar might avoid using the pills. Someone who knows someone is lying to them about their sexual history might avoid having sex with that person to protect themselves from STDs.
Fraud can in some ways be viewed as a violent act and from other perspectives might not be viewed as physical violence but merely a way to trick someone into doing a act of self harm or a act of physical violence against someone else. Whether or not they are called violent the physical consequences are the same if someone falls for the fraud and does the action that harms themself or someone else. Either way these types of fraud which cause physical harm to someone without their consent are unethical based on the physical consequences of the communication.
You can use defensive force to keep someone out of a location. Using defensive force to keep someone out of a location is fundamentally different than using defensive force to keep someone in a location.
You can use the defensive force or the threat of defensive force to relocate someone without detaining them. You could for example not allow someone to sleep in front of the door to your house because if you allow every stranger to hang out within three feet of your house someone might eventually kill you in your sleep or while you are trying to enter or leave your house. Not allowing other people to loiter to close to the building you sleep in is not the same as putting them in a cage because you could allow them to travel wherever they want as long as they are not trespassing where as detaining them and putting them in a cage does not allow them to go anywhere else.
Not allowing someone to enter your house could be defensive force but not allowing someone who did not initiate violence to leave your house is not defensive force except maybe under very unusual circumstances. Detaining someone who entered your house as part of a quarantine for a real disease could potentially be a use of defensive force. This would have to be something extreme and not a common cold given a fancy new name to be justified. Lying and fabricating a fake pandemic and then detaining someone in your house to prevent the spread of a pandemic you know does not exist would be a act of violence and not defensive force.
Debates over property rights exist
Some of the people who self identify as anarcho capitalists claim one very specific set of rules for property rights objectively exists by default throughout the entire universe and that it is defensive force not violent initiation of aggression to use force on someone to defend these property rights. Some other people claim using force to enforce property rights is an act of violence and or that those property rights as some or all anarcho capitalists define them do not objectively exist.
Local property ownership convention systems created by agreements. Borders to prevent entry to those who do not agree to such systems enforced by defensive force
As far as I am concerned societies could function harmoniously with many different possible property rights systems or property ownership convention agreements. People could make agreements about what property ownership convention system they will use when interacting with each other and forbid people from traveling to a region where everyone else agreed on a property ownership convention system unless they agree to abide by it while in that geographical region of very limited size that does not exceed the region that people who agree to that system are living in.
Defensive force can be used to protect people from harm involving environmental factors. Carbon dioxide, water, oxygen and nitrogen are not poisonous pollutants.
There would however be a potential for ecological disasters with some property ownership convention systems but any property ownership convention system that resulted in some toxic chemicals spreading to other societies that caused physical harm to people in outside societies could be considered an act of violence and defensive force could be used against the society that is spreading toxic chemicals to stop them from continuing to do that or prevent them from doing it in the first place.
By toxic chemicals I do not mean non radioactive forms of O2, H2O, N2, or CO2 but things more like mercury, lead, arsenic, carbon monoxide, uranium, plutonium and so on that are not safe for humans to eat or drink or breath or in some cases even touch, above certain amounts that could be plausibly encountered in certain industries or daily life situations.
Although CO2 emitted in the amounts used for industry in the 20th century was not a toxic chemical to humans and additionally never did cause massive worldwide flooding in the 20th century, hypothetically, if someone tried to eliminate the entire world of O2 by trying to burn or combust things so much that the amount of O2 in the world atmosphere decreased to levels where people could not breath enough oxygen to live this would be an act of violence and defensive force could be used to stop them. People could also drown in H2O or overdose resulting in death if they drank massive amounts of it in a single sitting. But O2, H2O, N2, and CO2 are the building blocks of life not Armageddon doom chemicals of the climate change Apocalypse.
There would also be the potential of viewing non human animals or plants as property in such a way to bring about their extinction but such an action again could be considered an act of violence and retaliated against with defensive force on the grounds that if you make every species go extinct one species at a time it will eventually cause physical harm through mass starvation.
Property rights are not necessary for survival so long as defensive force is permitted to prevent starvation or dehydration, and so on
Having any property rights at all or any regulations against stealing at all are not necessary for survival as long as you are allowed to use defensive force against those who would use violence or the threat of violence to cause your starvation
I am not making a distinction between sowing and planting. If you alone plant and cultivate a crop on land that no one else before you used and people come to your crop and take all of the food the moment it grows to a state ready for harvest without your permission because they do not believe there is such a thing as stealing or theft or property rights you might starve if they do this 100% of every time the crop you planted grows into harvestable food and it could cause lethal physical harm to you without your consent.
Now if Government policy forbid them from planting and harvesting food on land and they could not just plant and harvest a crop anywhere they wanted that no one else used first they might not have any method to get food other than taking it from crops other people planted but let's suppose that is not the case for this example and that they could plant and harvest food somewhere else if they wanted to.
Since these people claim you can just take anything you want and property rights do not exist it would be perfectly ok to go to wherever they put the food crop that you produced through farming and take it back.
If they do not use violence to stop you from taking the food supply back it should be very easy to get the food supply back. If they lock the food supply in a container you could destroy the lock to get to the food and argue you are not violating property rights since they claim no property rights exist.
Maybe it would be an act of violence to use force to stop them from taking the food you planted and cultivated but if it is then it would also be an act of violence for them to use force to stop you from taking the food supply you planted and cultivated that they took and if they use such force it would not be violent to use defensive force against them.
They could try splitting their group into multiple subgroups one would take food immediately every time it grew to a harvestable state and another could holds hands and form a circle around where they stored the food supply you planted and cultivated. They could sleep in shifts so that the circle always has people there 24 hours a day. They could argue that if you walk inside the circle you are performing violence by touching their bodies.
Perhaps around the circle another group of "peaceful" protesters could hold signs and sing lyrics about how you do not have a right to eat food just because you planted and cultivated it and how stepping inside the circle is violent.
Now if they only took the food supply once or left a large enough percentage for you to have enough to eat without starving or suffering malnutrition they might be right that it would be an act of violence to enter the circle because you could just eat the leftover crop or plant and cultivate another crop and eat it therefore they did not initiate harm against you by guarding the food supply you planted and cultivated that they took.
But in this case where they take any and all food you plant and cultivate once it reaches a harvestable state and immediately put it in the circle before you can eat it the only way to avoid starving is to get to the food supply that they are keeping inside the circle therefore they are committing an act of violence by attempting to starve you by using force to physically block your access to the only food supply with their bodies. In this case it would not be a act of violemce but defensive force to try to walk through the circle and to push them over or physically harm them if they continue to block your attempt to walk through the circle to get to the food supply.
The United States government registers large chunks of land as owned by government agencies, corporations or persons who do not actively use the land for farming. In some cases government officials use the claim of property rights to forcibly prevent people from planting, cultivating and harvesting food on unused land and in some but not necessarily all cases enforcing these claims of property rights might be an act of violence. If you can only plant, cultivate and harvest food on land that you have purchased in such a way that it is put on a government property registry and if all land on that property registry requires a payment of property tax you are then coerced through violence and the threat of violence to do additional work to earn money to pay taxes to be allowed to plant, cultivate and harvest crops.
This additional work may include selling some of your crop instead of merely storing and eating it but not selling it or it may involve getting a job with an employer to pay the property tax to simply be allowed to plant, cultivate and harvest food. Whether or not property rights objectively exist this property tax is enforced through violence and the threat of violence. Work that is forced through violence or the threat of violence is slavery. Planting, cultivating and harvesting crops so that you can eat the food is not slavery but being forced to sell a portion of the crops to pay the property tax is slavery not because of property rights but because of the violence used to prevent you from planting, cultivating and harvesting crops without doing the forced labor of selling crops. Planting, cultivating and harvesting crops so that you can eat the food is not slavery but being forced to work for an employer to pay the property tax is slavery not because of property rights but because of the violence used to prevent you from planting, cultivating and harvesting crops without doing the forced labor of working for an employer. Someone might argue you can avoid property tax by paying rent to someone else who pays property tax but this is just paying property tax through a middleman or middlewoman.
It is in your best interest to not do violence against people if you have a goal of people not using force on you.
Even if you do not claim to believe in objective morality it is in your best interest not to do violence against people if you have a goal of people not using force on you. If you live in a society where people do not retaliate with defensive force against people who use violence then you will fail at your goal to live in a society where people do not use force on you because there will be no means in the society to deter other people from using violence against you. If you live in a society where people do retaliate with defensive force against people who use violence then you can only achieve your goal of people not using force on you by choosing not to use violence.
It is in your best interest to educate those around you about the difference between defensive force and violence if you do not want other people to use violence on you. It is of importance to educate everyone but of greater importance to educate police, military and security persons.
You can not live in a society where violence or the threat of violence is not used against you so long as government officials in that society use violence to enforce rules against doing non violent things. If you wish to reduce the amount of violence and the threats of violence that are used to enslave you then you should try to persuade people including government officials not to use violence but only to use defensive force. Currently the culture of our society encourages police to use violence. The path to increased freedom is to educate society including police officers about how the more people choose to only use defensive force and not violence the more free society will be. A police officer who does not use violence and only uses defensive force would not arrest people unless the individual did violence or would do violence or would cause physical harm to people without their consent if they are not arrested.
It is of greater importance to educate police, military and security persons than people from other professions because they are in a better position to make a change in our society to promote freedom than any other profession of people. Politicians or other authority figures do not have the power to enforce unethical policies if the majority of police, military and security persons refuse to enforce policies they consider unethical and use persuasive words and defensive force to stop the minority portion from violently enforcing unethical policies. On the condition that the majority that morally objects and is either better armed and trained or equally armed and trained.
Unfortunately some of them might have to wait until the majority of their coworkers is informed to fully resist the system of slavery. In the meanwhile they might have to decide on a case by case basis whether they should enforce a bad policy and keep their job so they will be in a better position to change things later or refuse to enforce a bad policy and risk getting fired before their chance arrives. They would have to have some means to know when the majority have understood the difference between force and violence and are willing to create a change in how the management system or structure is run. If more than half are willing to make the change once the majority is one their side but believe they are the minority this could be an obstacle that prevents them from making the big change. If someone tries to make the big change in policy management but only the minority supports this then that individual could potentially end up not just fired but executed or imprisoned or possibly face other consequences.
Civilians can also create a big change but it is much more difficult because they are not as well armed and trained as police, military and security persons. The path to use civilians alone to achieve greater freedom is not preferable because the police, military and security persons would use massive amounts of violence against civilians who would not be well armed nor well trained to defend themselves. In my opinion the civilians would lose such a defensive conflict against police, military and security person violence if they could not convert the police, military and security persons to the side of freedom.
A revolution might not necessarily be required to achieve freedom if the majority of police, military and security persons decide to support freedom because the minority who wanted to continue following orders of authority figures to oppose freedom might quit knowing they can not win the conflict instead of using violence on the freedom supporting majority.
In addition to educating police, military and security persons to use defensive force and refrain from violence civilians must also be educated. If most of the civilians still did not understand that the physical consequences of them using violence on other people is a loss of their own freedom then there could be a high violent crime rate. As a result of such a high violent crime rate there would certainly be a less free society. Because, being a victim of violent crime reduces your freedom.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2022
Move this to the introduction
This work might contain typos that change the meaning to a different meaning than originally intended and maybe corrected over time. Some things I write only represent a approximation of my viewpoints and there maybe many exceptions and layers of nuance I did not include. Some things I write may not even represent my own viewpoints but are simply a method of brainstorming ideas that might or might not be true which can be evaluated later. Other things maybe in the form of fiction, sarcasm, parody or satire and not be true.
Comments
Post a Comment