Intuitively, we understand that if we can get the same results with either violence or non-violence, then the method of non-violence is infinitely more moral. To clarify, here are some examples of goals and how they can be met with and without violence:
- Getting a girl - I can kidnap one and trap her in a well Buffalo Bill style, OR I can make myself appealing, ask her out, and allow her to voluntarily choose to be with me.
- Getting a kid to do chores - I can threaten to hit him if he doesn't do it, OR I can negotiate or make a game out of it to help him want to do it.
- Bettering the education system - I can take money from people against their will and subsidize public schools, OR I can work for, create or support companies like Praxis, which make education cheaper and more efficient.
Notice that the peaceful solutions require more work and creativity. On the other hand, violence is an easy, one-size-fits-all type of tool. It simply doesn't require much critical thought, work or patience.
Do you want something done but you're too lazy, incompetent and/or sadistic? Well, have I got the perfect solution for you: violence.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say that corporal punishment is absolutely necessary for this or that when they haven't even read a single book on peaceful parenting.
The lack of research is even more egregious when it comes to people advocating for government force. That's because people get their belief in government through social osmosis instead of through critical thought. Even people who don't care at all about politics are absolutely, 100% sure that society would collapse without government coercion. It's almost as if they were taught by schools run by governments. Oh, wait.
It really bothers me that most people argue for corporal punishment and institutionalized violence as if they've personally ruled out every voluntary option. It bothers me even more that those people are usually the same ones who claim to care about people.
About 70% of the U.S. population still endorses corporal punishment and the love for government coercion is as popular as the love for hamburgers. Do you think all of those people thoroughly examined their options before reaching those conclusions? Especially when I consider how little critical thought is promoted in schools, I doubt it.
The fact is, most people reach for the sword way too quickly. I attribute this to laziness, incompetency, and/or sadism. I mean, just think of the three violent scenarios I gave and see what applies with what. It's actually a fun thought experiment.
Whatever the reason is, I don't think it's an excuse. If people support violent solutions when they didn't even look for voluntary alternatives, I think they are being immoral. So, here's my general rule that everyone who does not want to be immoral must follow:
If you haven't properly searched for peaceful solutions, your default position should NOT be that a violent one is necessary.
(Of course, this is provided that you have the time to assess your options - I'm not suggesting if a crazy guy ran at you with a knife, that you stop and think of every course of action before shooting him)
Doing merely some research is not enough. To do this properly, I recommend that you thoroughly test all proposed peaceful solutions. I know, it sounds like hard work, but you should be happy to have a high tolerance before resorting to violence. If you don't have that then I'm afraid you may have a bad case of authoritarianism.
Notice how, with this moral rule, it is easy to not do the wrong thing. It is just as simple as not advocating for or committing violence when you don't know enough. You can literally do this in your sleep!
If you're a person who has supported or committed violence without satisfying this rule, you probably want to demand that I show you a peaceful solution before you let go of your belief in the violent one. While I could probably point you to a non-violent alternative to some situations, the truth is that I shouldn't have to.
That's because the burden of proof is not on me, but rather on the people that claim that the ONLY way to get something done is through force. It's not up to the girl to prove to me why I shouldn't kidnap her. If I belt a child to get him to do chores, it is not up to him to justify why I shouldn't have done it. The same goes with me demanding forced redistribution of wealth. I'm the aggressor, so why should the victims carry the burden? Sadly this simple truth of who should carry the burden of proof has been tragically ignored.
Okay, now that you know these things, there really is no excuse. Like I said, all you have to do is drop your support of violence until you do the proper research. That is, if you don't want to be immoral. Luckily for you, there are people out there that have devoted their whole lives to finding peaceful alternatives. Every resource imaginable is easily accessible to us by the power of the internet. So, go out there and explore. Once you let go of the limiting idea that violence is necessary, you might be surprised by all the possibilities.
To make it easier for you, below are some useful resources that will help you discover peaceful alternatives having to do with parenting and socioeconomics.
On Parenting:
- Unconditional Parenting by Alfie Kohn. Book that explains why it's harmful to use both rewards and punishments.
- Conference speech by Roslyn Ross. A powerful presentation on how to raise kids as individualists with high-self esteem in a peaceful manner.
- Nonviolent Communication by Marshall B. Rosenberg. It gives you the linguistic tools to solve almost any conflict
On Socioeconomics:
- Freedom! by Adam Kokesh. A fine (and free) book introducing voluntaryism.
- pressingthebutton.com. A site that keeps an ever expanding list of alternatives to governments that already exist
- FEE.org. It has great articles which illuminate all the good that comes out of free markets and the bad things that come out of government.
Nice post
This indeed is a serious problem.
Most people just want to throw money at something till it goes away.
There are poor and starving? Throw money at it.
There are sick and unhealthy? Throw money at it.
Especially if it is other people's money.
But, going by the biggest examples of throwing money at a problem, the Bronx should be a shining city with great potential. But, it is anything but.
Helping people is seriously hard.
And stopping the violence that has been perpetrated so much that it is just part of the fabric of society takes real courage, and real self analysis.
@carstairs, this is a brilliant article and tackles statism in a way I haven't seen before. The problem is, people don't believe government is coercive or violent. They believe taxation is perfectly moral and virtuous.
Followed!
Thanks for the compliment. With this argument, I don't think you need to convince people that taxation is bad. I'd still ask them "if the same job could be done without taxation, wouldn't it be nicer?" then I'd ask how much research they've done to rule out all other proposed options. Because taxation necessarily closes a lot of opportunity for potentially better solutions, they better be damn sure that "it's the only way."
Congratulations @carstairs! You have received a personal award!
Click on the badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
Hi Erick. You are off to a good start. I'm new to Steemit too, and I write about voluntaryism too. You mentioned parenting, and that is a difficult topic for me to address with others. I don't have kids, but I have seen how people can work with their kids without violence... it's really hard to explain that to someone who was raised in a violent home.
My blog is about voluntaryism and finding ways to have a conversation with statists so that we have a chance of making some progress... kind of on a similar track.
how do you have 120 followers with one post and one upvote?
Thanks. I think this approach can be a powerful one. Namely the argument that it is your moral duty to look for a peaceful solution before you resort to violence. It has worked to get two friends to stop believing in corporal punishment. I usually ask how hard they tried to look for alternatives, have they read any books, listened to podcasts, asked peaceful parents etc. It always turns out that they could have tried harder. If they haven't done any research at all then their default position should never be that violence is necessary.
It seems that all of my followers are bots that follow everybody. I made this account about a year ago but then never used it until now.
I think you are overcomplicating it. Violence can only be moral in defence.
If you face a problem that truly cannot be solved without violence, then it is better to just not solve the problem and accept that given our human nature in certain areas we cannot reach perfection. Nothing good will come from a violent solution as it always implies that for your own gain, more suffering is created elsewhere.
I actually agree that any force that isn't in self-defense is immoral. In this post I'm assuming that it isn't for the sake of argument because most people that already accept force in those ways are not very likely to be convinced of that. I think this is a more effective approach, saying that even if you believe in violence, you still understand that reaching your goal through non-violence is way more moral, and to ignore that option makes you immoral.
I have another post in mind saying that because of the fact that you even have violence as an option, you are a lot less likely to find peaceful solutions. Thus, people can be convinced of voluntaryism through a perspective other than "non-defensive force is always immoral." Maybe it wont be work, but having more arguments from different angles that lead to voluntaryism is always good, isn't it?
please support @ihsanbhr
Upvote this notification to help all Steemit users.
@Thank you Carstairs,
Congratulations @carstairs! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP"...Intuitively, we understand that if we can get the same results with either violence or non-violence, then the method of non-violence is infinitely more moral..." -- There's a step in the logic that's missing here. From an intuitive position, a non-violent strategy is certainly preferable (lower risk, less effort), but you have to provide at least one extra step to get from there to morally better, and this essay doesn't do that.
You're quite right that peaceful solutions to problems require more creativity and more patience (and often more intelligence), but that seems to me, to be an argument in favor of force, particularly for those who lack those things -- and the problem here, is that sometimes force works for these people, at least, in the short term, which is all they're generally concerned about. So, you've burdened yourself with also having to convince those who are short-term oriented that they ought not be, but again, this essay doesn't do that.
Your "default position" argument is interesting, but as formulated here, it only works if you already accept the view that would make peaceful solutions your default position in the first place. In other words, at a minimum you're begging the question, and at worst you're just preaching to the choir.
That's an interesting point. I'm going to have to think about that. But i'd like to say that this argument isn't just preaching to the choir. I've personally seen it work on getting people to stop supporting corporal punishment.
Maybe it is a leap in logic, but it's also a leap in logic that most people make. Most people do value non-violent solutions more than violent ones and they look down on people who lack patience, work ethic, creativity etc. I'm using this to my advantage and calling them out by letting them know they are being incompetent, lazy and/or sadistic (and by their own standards too). Though I'm doing it in a slightly more compassionate manner.
I guess I should say that this argument is for people that like to think of themselves as "caring." People who already accept the premise. I do think that's still a lot of people.
Congratulations @carstairs! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCongratulations @carstairs! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!