Would you prefer to live in a just world? - An argument for liberty
There is a principle of law that is acknowledged and often enforced all around the world, that if someone interferes with another’s person or property, they will be punished. For example, if you break down someone’s door without a damned good reason, such as the prevention of harm to an innocent, if you are caught and proven guilty, you will be punished. Likewise, if I approach someone and threaten them into giving me money, if I am caught, I will be punished. Of course, if it is found that I was in a very desperate situation such as having to feed my family, this will be treated as mitigating circumstances and the sentence will be reduced. However, I will still be punished.
Given the choice, would you prefer to live in a society where everyone who broke down doors without a very good reason were punished, and everyone who threatened others into giving them money were punished? Or would you prefer to live in a society where certain classes of people had an exemption, where they could break down doors indiscriminately, without good reason, and threaten people into giving them money without being punished at all?
If a person doesn’t give the question its full consideration, most people will say, of course they would prefer to live in a society where the law is applied evenly. But what is the full extent of this proposition?
Police, having no right to arrest anybody whom they didn’t reasonably suspect of harming someone or their property, will decide to keep mostly to themselves, or find productive ways of maintaining the peace, by establishing ties with the community and gaining its trust. Instead of demanding someone pull over for driving too fast, they would calmly and politely ask, and attempt to persuade them that their actions exposed themselves and others to undue risk.
Judges, knowing that they will be liable for any command they make, will be unwilling to enact any punishment against peaceful people, for example, for buying or selling drugs.
Politicians would be scared to pass any legislation punishing anyone who hadn’t harmed another – making the job of politician almost completely unnecessary. And they certainly wouldn’t call for acts of war which endangered the lives of innocent civilians, because every innocent killed could be a charge of manslaughter. Likewise, soldiers would refuse to attack unless they could be certain they were only attacking a legitimate threat.
Tax collectors would decide to change tactics, knowing they couldn’t threaten anybody into getting their money, and so they would instead canvas for donations, or turn to charging for individual services.
If you agree with the premise that those who injure, threaten or steal from others should be punished, you might have to rethink what the problems with the world are, and what your idea of an ideal world might be. If you disagree, and believe that certain classes of people should be free to attack, threaten and steal from others, and even commit mass murder, then again I would suggest you reconsider where your ideas might lead, what kind of ideal world they imply, and whether that is really the kind of thing you want to support, in your heart or in your actions. Do you really want to be a detractor of civilisation, welcoming violence as necessary, along with all of the abuses of power that come with it?
Making a more peaceful world isn’t easy. There will be challenges along the way, inventing new ways of solving problems with less and less violence, or no violence, when previously we believed they were only solvable with violence. And maybe we’ll never achieve such a thing in our lifetimes, or in any lifetime. But when you look back on your life, with your dying breath, will you be content in knowing that your entire life you supported the status quo, that violence is a requirement? Or would you be more content knowing that you dared to dream, to imagine a world without war, without police brutality and abuses of power, where the word “civilisation” is not a euphemism for a society dominated by the threat of violence, but, through an entire population becoming civil, is a literal fact.
I’m not asking much. I’m not asking you to do or say anything, or even exert any effort. I’m just asking you to let go of one idea, the idea that “violence is necessary” – the conviction that even an ideal world must include threats of violence – because whatever happens, the thought of dominating your fellow man out of necessity can never make you happy. To liberate yourself from this idea is to open up new possibilities, to open yourself to compassion for your fellow man, and to embrace the innocent as worthy of your protection.
I originally published this on our website here. I'll put a comment from @paradise-paradox below to confirm that this is my own work.
This is very good article about the punishment and talking about its instances like reasons, to what extent and our system need to be improved. I think campaigns must be organised to have some awareness and it may narrow down the difference. Violence must be avoided to keep the country free. Thanks for sharing @churdtzu
I don't want to live in a society where anyone, especially the government is breaking down anyone's doors. But it seems as if they're pushing that envelope further across the table everyday unfortunately :(
I think each and every one of us should contribute towards prohibiting violence. Like creating a community or some campaigns.
as i see it, a government is a citizen and should be treated as such. They need to be held accountable by the very same laws that they impose on the others, beneath them and their jurisdiction. If they are not, then we live in a tyranny and we are nothing but slaves.
Yes, 100%. "We're all equal before the eyes of the law."
I have been thinking about, just unable to write about, what the system in reverse looks like. Just meaning, top down economics is what I would call the world way, money distributed by people in power. With Steemit we have a community distributed currency. What if that applied larger scale? Hard to blame police when they're told the laws to enforce.... imagine if payment comes from the community. Change the incentive, change the behavior.
Right on. I can't remember who brought up this idea, but it went something like this: imagine if Steemit's incentive system applied to everything in life. So when someone stopped to help you with a flat tyre, you could upvote them, or if they give you good advice, or even help protect you or return your property, as you're describing.
I remembered a couple of times where I returned people's wallets or IDs when I found them on the street. I didn't expect any reward for it, but if we want to live in a really great society, these are the kinds of things which should be rewarded. I can't wait until someone figures out how to do that in a way which is as easy as upvoting a Steemit post.
I honestly think you and @andrarchy were on the right track to a concept idea anyway with the offline MMO, I took awhile to write it but here was my concepts:
On The Concept Of An Offline MMOG
Now I am trying to think of something to do with the SBD rewards... try to kick start it lol
First, @churdtzu, I love you so much for saying this. The last paragraph, especially. I've noticed a surprising streak of violent authoritarianism, lately on facebook. Someone feels powerless about an issue ( and I know they're just venting) but when they take it to a place of advocating the rape of rapists, taking pleasure in the thought of causing pain, relishing "justice," they take a big step towards becoming exactly what they despise. The impulse to protect the innocent can always be channeled into good deeds and always should.
I sometimes think so much could be accomplished if we put 70% of our current policing energy into rewarding and aiding volunteers who are taking initiative in their communities and just totally stopped caring about tail lights, helmets, and so much else.
Much appreciated, @pulpably. I've noticed too, over the last 6 months or so, that many people who I thought were very peaceful people, now seem to think that Trump is really cool, along with the ideas of violent domination, among other things.
I notice you follow @sterlinluxan on here. Maybe this group will lighten your Facebook experience if you haven't already joined https://www.facebook.com/groups/1679321158973580/?fref=ts
Don't get me started on the tail light and helmet thing hahah... Now I live in Mexico so normally I don't have to deal with that nonsense.
Oh wow! Thank you for the group suggestion. I asked to join. :)
At this point I tend to lean on the side that with no laws or enforcement, society would very quickly break down into something awful, there is a part of what you say here that resonates with me. I've often said this: the price of freedom is that many people will make the wrong decision. By this I mean that while laws can curb the grossest of violations, you can't have and enforce laws for everything. Should it be a law that all parents use car seats for their small children and babies when traveling? I believe car seats are a great thing and have saved lives, but what would the cost be of the police making sure all babies were in car seats at all times when in a vehicle? Or, some people believe that vaccinations are necessary for public health, but should everyone be compelled to take them? What of those people who upon research and reflection do not believe they are as beneficial as all that? Most people I interact with are generally in favor of punishing offenses such as murder and other acts which obviously harm another. Where it gets difficult is in those gray areas, such as car seats, smoking in your own home around your kids, vaccinations, or even using marijuana for pain relief purposes.
As for what people would do with no laws, one issue that has to be considered is what Catholics call "original sin," which is the belief that we were all created in a state of justice and holiness (without the inclination to disordered thinking and actions), but that our first parents fell into sin, with one of the consequences being that we are all born with a tendency towards disordered passions, thinking, and to do bad things. Any system of social orgnization that is going to be successful would have to take that situation into account. That's usually why we have laws--to curb that tendency to sin or commit crimes. I'm not saying the current way we do things is necessarily the best way, but sometimes I think people who talk about anarchy aren't taking original sin fully into account. Am I correct on this?
Thanks for your comment @wiser
I can't speak for all anarchists, but I can give my own perspective. I don't think there should be no laws, but I do think that there shouldn't be any organisation which maintains a violent monopoly on law. To me, the idea that phasing out government would mean that there would be no law, is analogous to the idea that, phasing out McDonalds would mean there would be no hamburgers - or even no food.
Now, it's true that some law comes from government. But if you use the term generally, you'll realise that there are many forms of law that actually do not come from government. For example, if you walk into a store and have the opportunity to steal, normally you won't do it. Most people won't do it, even though, in all likelihood, it would be very easy for them to get away with it. By deciding not to steal, they are actually deciding to maintain the law, all by themselves. Curious, isn't it? And if those same people saw a thief, they might even holler out to alert the security guards, or to shame him into putting the merchandise back.
Those are a couple of kinds of law that exist independently of government, but I'm not saying that those would be the only kinds, as of course we need further-reaching systems to address the situations in which people do the wrong thing, like you were talking about. One possible, already existent model for law enforcement is the Detroit Threat Management Center
Another system, already functioning to some degree, is Bitnation, a system which is based on blockchain technology, which can potentially be used for identification and dispute arbitration
https://bitnation.co/
The point is, humans are generally good, and humans are very resourceful. A centralised system of law isn't the only way to maintain order in a society - in fact, there may be as many ways to maintain order as there are people. We just need the opportunity to innovate.
I see your point about how a centralized government is not the only way a society can organize and govern itself. I also think that when people who are not anarchists or voluntaryists (sp?) hear the term "anarchy" we tend to think you all mean "without laws." I'm getting the impression that is a misconception about the anarchy movement?
I think one bit of philosophy we may have in common is the idea of human beings voluntarily holding themselves up to a higher standard than what any kind of law could dictate. For example, take murder. Most people (even those who commit it) would agree that murder is unethical and something that should not be done under ordinary circumstances. Our laws against murder reflect that, and pretty much every society has them.
But the laws can really only address the gross violations, such as when there is a dead body. Now, along comes Jesus Christ and he introduces us to a higher standard while preaching His Sermon on the Mount. He tells us that if we hate our brother, it is just like we have committed murder against him. Well, unlike actual murder, hate is a state of the heart, and not something that any law can adequately address, nor could any government enforce. Today our government sometimes tries to call things hate crimes and that can get very draconian very fast. There is no practical or just way that the state could possibly enforce a prohibition against feeling hatred in your heart for someone.
However, when individual human beings voluntarily hold themselves up to the higher standard of not holding hatred in their hearts for anybody, well then the end result is that you would have a society in which actual murder doesn't take place. In the Catholic tradition, the way in which we do that is that we go to confession when we find ourselves to have violated that higher standard. We present ourselves to the Church already with a guilty verdict and await the sentencing from the Church. And actually, what the Church grants every time is mercy and forgiveness and encouragement to do better. The overall result is that all the laws against murder are not what keeps me in line, so to speak. It's my own choice to put myself under this higher standard of not holding hatred in my heart, and willingness to be held accountable to the Church for when I do, that keeps me far away from committing the crime of murder.
When you say humans are generally good, are you really saying that humans generally will voluntarily hold themselves up to a higher standard than what society's laws can address?
And when a critical mass of humans do not seem to hold themselves to a higher standard, then what do you say is the reason for that? That is what seems to be happening now, with terrorism and certain people targeting white police officers for murder, among other things. Would you say that the violence we see currently is a product of bad government or even unnecessary government? Or would you say that it is an intrinsic problem with human nature itself? Not that humans are categorically bad, but that there is something within humans that if not mastered by humans (each one mastering it within himself), will get worse and more evil and spiral out of control.
Generally, I'd say yes, that's a misconception. I have met the occasional anarchist who wants to vandalise and destroy things senselessly, and thinks laws are stupid, but that's extremely rare. You'll notice I didn't use the words "anarchy" or "voluntaryism" in the post... except for the tags. People can read the article without thinking in those terms if they wish.
Your spelling is correct by the way, though some spell it as "voluntarists".
Right, personal responsibility, religion and the support of friends and family do much more to prevent that problem than a system of law ever could.
Yes. I see people be nice all the time. It's not like they will be punished if they're not nice, and, as in the example I mentioned, it's unlikely that people will be punished even for shoplifting. But most people don't do it. Of course, that doesn't mean that we can't have a system of law as well.
I don't know the cause in every situation, but it does tend to be the exception, not the rule. In a lot of cases, when people are taxed or regulated so much that the amount they spend on food exceeds a certain percentage (I think around 30%), a riot becomes much more likely.
In many cases, yes.
Human nature is very adaptable. If humans are raised and supported in one environment, people will act one way. In a violent or stressful environment, people will act another way. Generally, that thing inside them doesn't just get worse without provocation... it has to be fed. That works for negative influence and positive influence.
Confirming that this is Kurt's original work.
I don't think many people would say that violence is necessary--it's just inevitable. Humans have been violent towards other each other since the beginning of time.
I have upvoted not because I agree, but because I admire your curiosity and willingness to share your thoughts on a complicated subject.
Unfortunately, I've had many people make the case to me that violence is necessary. I remember I was having a heated discussion with one fellow, and I asked him how much violence and threats of violence would exist in an ideal society. I thought that the answer was quite obvious - zero. But he said that because violence and threats had such an integral role in maintaining order in a society, the amount of violence and violent threats in an ideal society must be non-zero.
Perhaps it's inevitable... Even in that case, we can always have less violence. It's inevitable that you or I will be in a violent situation at some time in our lives, but of course most of us don't try to promote violence in our personal lives. However, many people do promote violent behaviour when it comes to government agents - in the form of locking tax-evaders, marijuana smokers or marijuana sellers in prison. That's definitely not something that has a place in my ideal world.
Thanks for your comment and have a great day
You can change this world only when ....
You give incentives to your people if you are ruler
you give justice if your a judge
you give powers to poor and low grade people if you are Boss
But infact all these are written in laws, in books we read in our schools,universities but the followers are those who are helpless,who are weak. The economist,the strong community,the strong countries neglect these rules and always force others by there power,economy and these injustice environment then generate the community who then create a very bad image as whole and then the ruler or the govt who defines the punishment always target these type community in press and in live discussion and rule the community,The police never handled these activities yet the rule itself obey the rules and laws.