Why Is Peaceful Parenting Possible but Peaceful Government Not Possible?

[STer]

Stefan clearly believes it is possible for parents, despite their almost infinite power over their children - a power discrepancy that I believe he has called the greatest there is - to learn to be peaceful and not abuse that power, which includes a monopoly on the use of force in the family, to cause harm. Indeed the possibility of this seems to be something at the very basis of his hope for a better world, and something he passionately argues is not only possible, but should be our main goal.

 

Yet at the same time, when it comes to government, he says that it is impossible to allow any group of people to have the power of a monopoly of legal use of force - even though, relatively, in practice, this monopoly is less complete than the parental one since at least most of the people governed are adults who can use force if they need to in ways that children just literally cannot do - and end up with peace.

 

Why is this? If parents can learn to be peaceful despite this huge power differential, why can't people who govern learn that too? Doesn't the very idea of peaceful parenting conflict with the idea that human beings simply can't handle huge levels of power over other humans with grace and care?

 

This is more than just a theoretical question. When it comes to government, Stefan's (and other anarchists') line of thinking is "Too much power corrupts, therefore we must not have a government with a monopoly of power." Yet, when it comes to parenting, the same people don't say "Too much power corrupts, therefore, we must never allow one or two people to have that much power over their children." They aren't anarchists when it comes to the ruling position of parents.

 

This may sound silly, but think about the many tribal cultures where the nuclear family is far less important and extended families are much more engaged so that far more people are in the daily life of every child in the tribe. I have heard some researchers say that this may reduce abuses because so many more people are around witnessing what goes on with the children in the tribe regularly. This seems analogous to the idea of never centralizing the power too much applied to the family.

[Wesley]

I think it comes down to that parents exist because of biological necessity.

 

Parents can raise their children in a peaceful manner.

 

Governments are axiomatically defined as not peaceful. If they were, they would not be governments anymore but rather charities or businesses.

[STer]

I think it comes down to that parents exist because of biological necessity.Parents can raise their children in a peaceful manner.Governments are axiomatically defined as not peaceful. If they were, they would not be governments anymore but rather charities or businesses.

Parents exist of biological necessity. But biological parents do not have to have the level of power that they have in modern nuclear families. And, in fact, in many cultures they did not have that level of power. And part of the reason for that may have been that children were actually safer with power over them spread a bit wider over the extended family.

 

There are even cultures, I believe, where there was intermingling so that people couldn't be completely sure which child was whose, which led to everyone having an interest in all the children.

 

So the point is there are different strategies that have existed in different cultures to decentralize power over children.

 

Other than that, you didn't really give any explanation of WHY parents can supposedly raise children in a peaceful manner if the argument is that humans are not capable of handling huge power differentials without abusing them.

 

I don't define a government as not peaceful. I simply define it as an entity that possesses power over the basic functions of a society  - certainly functions that charities and businesses do not have power over.

[Wesley]

Dispersion would enforce cultural norms. For instance. I would not hit my kids. However, if I left them with people in my culture or my parents they would probably be hit.

 

I would think you would have enough empirical examples on these boards or in the podcasts where at least one person has raised children peacefully. This means it is possible.

 

Governments are defined as doing one of two things.

1. Forced paying for a service

And/or

2. Monopoly provision of a service (exclusion of competitors by force)

 

If they do not have either of these things, then it is not a government. It can be a DRO or a welfare charity or some other thing where you can choose to pay and you can have options of competition. The government by definition uses force. I there is no force it is no longer a government.

[STer]

Dispersion would enforce cultural norms. For instance. I would not hit my kids. However, if I left them with people in my culture or my parents they would probably be hit.I would think you would have enough empirical examples on these boards or in the podcasts where at least one person has raised children peacefully. This means it is possible.Governments are defined as doing one of two things.1. Forced paying for a serviceAnd/or2. Monopoly provision of a service (exclusion of competitors by force)If they do not have either of these things, then it is not a government. It can be a DRO or a welfare charity or some other thing where you can choose to pay and you can have options of competition. The government by definition uses force. I there is no force it is no longer a government.

Since I think the main point of what I'm raising is getting lost, let me refocus this:

 

True or false? Human beings are capable of handling huge differentials of power over others with grace and care?

[Wesley]

Since I think the main point of what I'm raising is getting lost, let me refocus this:

 

True or false? Human beings are capable of handling huge differentials of power over others with grace and care?

I would say it is unlikely without self-knowledge and conscious effort. However, I would say that empirically it has happened with a few people on this board and their children, thus humans are capable.

[STer]

I would say it is unlikely without self-knowledge and conscious effort. However, I would say that empirically it has happened with a few people on this board and their children, thus humans are capable.

OK so if that's true (and I agree) then it is incorrect to state that we can't have positions of power like those in governments because humans simply can't handle such power differentials with grace and care. Yet this is an argument I have heard Stefan make countless times.

 

I would like to establish in this thread, once and for all, that at least some human beings are indeed capable of responsibly handling positions of huge power over others, even greater power than any state has over its people. For is that not what peaceful parenting proves?

[Wesley]

OK so if that's true (and I agree) then it is incorrect to state that we can't have positions of power like those in governments because humans simply can't handle such power differentials with grace and care. Yet this is an argument I have heard Stefan make countless times.

 

I would like to establish in this thread, once and for all, that at least some human beings are indeed capable of responsibly handling positions of huge power over others, even greater power than any state has over its people. For is that not what peaceful parenting proves?

Yes, it is possible. However, it is infinitesimal odds for those who desire to rule and control over others.

 

Also, you missed my point. The state is not just a "differential of power" but is by definition forceful in nature.

[STer]

Yes, it is possible. However, it is infinitesimal odds for those who desire to rule and control over others.

 

Also, you missed my point. The state is not just a "differential of power" but is by definition forceful in nature.

The state has the monopoly on the legal right to use force. That doesn't mean they have to use it. In that way it's no different than parents. Parents have a monopoly on the use of force in their home. But that doesn't mean they have to use it.

 

Peaceful parenting is all about people in a position where they could use force and have the power to do so, but choose not to anyway. Why couldn't those in the government make that same choice?

[Wesley]

By definition, government is actively using force or threats of force. Parents need not be. This is the difference.

[STer]

By definition, government is actively using force or threats of force. Parents need not be. This is the difference.

I disagree with your definition. And even if we allowed your definition to pass, it would just ignore the point and reduce this to a semantic thing.

 

The point is this:

 

Why can't a group of people hold the monopoly on force in a society yet choose to rule peacefully just the way parents can do the same? 

 

Forget the words state, government, etc. if you prefer. The point is their position in the society and what they do with it.

 

Stefan constantly says that if positions with such power exist, they will be abused as if it's a rule of humanity. Yet he doesn't seem to think this is true at the family level, only at the larger social level.

[PatrickC]

I think there are two distinct differences between families and govt's. Primarily Stefan would argue that it is a moral obligation that a parent places on themselves, that they raise a child as peacefully as possible. The second is that parents let their children go once they reach maturity. This is more or less enforced on them, rather than a choice per se, as an adult child can clearly overpower their parents, if they attempt to keep them under their supervision. However, the gift a parent is more likely to receive for having practised peaceful parenting is a lifetime bond with their child into old age.

 

No such obligations exist for govt's. Govt's basically control our lives from cradle to grave and no amount of rebelling or defending our independence from it, is possible. But you know all this right?

 

This may sound silly, but think about the many tribal cultures where the nuclear family is far less important and extended families are much more engaged so that far more people are in the daily life of every child in the tribe. I have heard some researchers say that this may reduce abuses because so many more people are around witnessing what goes on with the children in the tribe regularly. This seems analogous to the idea of never centralizing the power too much applied to the family.

 

I think you raise an interesting topic regarding tribal cultures perhaps being more conscientious in the business of child rearing, due to a larger field of adults that are aware of them and have some interest in their care and development. Not sure if you're alluding to tribal cultures being similar to govt's, but if you were, I would argue that they are quite different. Tribes share a bonding with each other that frankly never occurs with govts. Govt's attempt to re-enact that bonding with collectivist ideas like nationality and culture. But these faux bonds are mere sentimental fluff by comparison to your fellow tribesman or woman that actually provides you with a meaningful mutual exchange of value. No such mutuality occurs under the state, just meaningless adjectives. 

[Wesley]

I disagree with your definition. And even if we allowed your definition to pass, it would just ignore the point and reduce this to a semantic thing.

 

The point is this:

 

Why can't a group of people hold the monopoly on force in a society yet choose to rule peacefully just the way parents can do the same? 

 

Forget the words state, government, etc. if you prefer. The point is their position in the society and what they do with it.

 

Stefan constantly says that if positions with such power exist, they will be abused as if it's a rule of humanity. Yet he doesn't seem to think this is true at the family level, only at the larger social level.

 

 

Governments are defined as doing one of two things.1. Forced paying for a serviceAnd/or2. Monopoly provision of a service (exclusion of competitors by force)

Give me an example where a government existed and it did not fill one at least of these two categories.

 

Unless you disagree that doing these things does not count as force or threat of force, in which case we would have a different discussion.

[_LiveFree_]

Stefan clearly believes it is possible for parents, despite their almost infinite power over their children - a power discrepancy that I believe he has called the greatest there is - to learn to be peaceful and not abuse that power, which includes a monopoly on the use of force in the family, to cause harm. Indeed the possibility of this seems to be something at the very basis of his hope for a better world, and something he passionately argues is not only possible, but should be our main goal.

 

Yet at the same time, when it comes to government, he says that it is impossible to allow any group of people to have the power of a monopoly of legal use of force - even though, relatively, in practice, this monopoly is less complete than the parental one since at least most of the people governed are adults who can use force if they need to in ways that children just literally cannot do - and end up with peace.

 

Why is this? If parents can learn to be peaceful despite this huge power differential, why can't people who govern learn that too? Doesn't the very idea of peaceful parenting conflict with the idea that human beings simply can't handle huge levels of power over other humans with grace and care?

 

This is more than just a theoretical question. When it comes to government, Stefan's (and other anarchists') line of thinking is "Too much power corrupts, therefore we must not have a government with a monopoly of power." Yet, when it comes to parenting, the same people don't say "Too much power corrupts, therefore, we must never allow one or two people to have that much power over their children." They aren't anarchists when it comes to the ruling position of parents.

 

This may sound silly, but think about the many tribal cultures where the nuclear family is far less important and extended families are much more engaged so that far more people are in the daily life of every child in the tribe. I have heard some researchers say that this may reduce abuses because so many more people are around witnessing what goes on with the children in the tribe regularly. This seems analogous to the idea of never centralizing the power too much applied to the family.

 

I want to go back to your original post.

 

Your first paragraph is interesting. Parents don't have a monopoly on the use of force. They are simply bigger and stronger. There is a difference here. A monopoly can only be granted to a certain entity, it can never be achieved in nature. I think the point is not that parents use their bigger and stronger -ness for good, but that they don't use their bigger and stronger -ness at all. Once a parent has to use the 'i'm bigger and stronger' position to parent, they've already lost. Peace doesn't come from having the biggest gun and pointing it at everyone while pretending to maintain an air of benevolence. Peace comes when you simply put down the gun. 

 

So to begin with, I do not think you fully understand what Stef means by "Peaceful Parenting". However, I will continue just in case you accept my first paragraph.

 

I totally agree with your 2nd paragraph.

 

Paragraph 3 is where the misunderstanding in paragraph 1 begins to cause some problems. Peaceful Parenting is not "use the gun well" but "don't use the gun at all". Government, by it's very existence is a gun in the room. Here is the proof.

 

Theft is the initiation of violence and, therefore, morally wrong. Government can only exist because it taxes. Taxation is theft. Therefore, government exists because it initiates violence. Government is morally wrong. 

 

Government IS the gun. That's why it must be put down.

 

Too much power corrupts not because man is flawed in some way or susceptible to evil or any of that religious stuff. "Power corrupts" is an awkward way of saying that man's mind cannot handle the billions and billions of facts, data, and information that goes into the billions and billions of decisions that must be made in order to do the greatest good. In other words, Man is not smart enough, fast enough, or have enough time in the day in order to wield vast amounts of power over other men. I know what's best for me because I have all my thoughts, feelings, emotions, and experiences. When I have a child, I'm the 2nd person in the world that knows what's best for the child, and most of my decisions regarding this child are based on what this child tells/shows me are his/her needs. If I am the mayor of a city of 3 million people, where on the scale am I for knowing what is best for all of those people? Not even close to 3 million, because it's exponential. In fact, the more power you accumulate, the less you are able to perform positive action because you simply do not know the needs and wants of all people. Government is typically drawn as an upright pyramid with the most power at the top. In reality, it is the exact opposite. The more power you achieve, the lower you are. And in fact, this is shown in nature. There is no greater power than a parent over a child (1 to 1). 

 

That's why anarchy is so brilliant and obvious. To maximize actions that are good for every person on the planet, power must be local (i.e. the individual).

 

As for your last paragraph, step-parents are far more likely to physically abuse kids.

[PatrickC]

Too much power corrupts not because man is flawed in some way or susceptible to evil or any of that religious stuff. "Power corrupts" is an awkward way of saying that man's mind cannot handle the billions and billions of facts, data, and information that goes into the billions and billions of decisions that must be made in order to do the greatest good. In other words, Man is not smart enough, fast enough, or have enough time in the day in order to wield vast amounts of power over other men. I know what's best for me because I have all my thoughts, feelings, emotions, and experiences. When I have a child, I'm the 2nd person in the world that knows what's best for the child, and most of my decisions regarding this child are based on what this child tells/shows me are his/her needs. If I am the mayor of a city of 3 million people, where on the scale am I for knowing what is best for all of those people? Not even close to 3 million, because it's exponential. In fact, the more power you accumulate, the less you are able to perform positive action because you simply do not know the needs and wants of all people. Government is typically drawn as an upright pyramid with the most power at the top. In reality, it is the exact opposite. The more power you achieve, the lower you are. And in fact, this is shown in nature. There is no greater power than a parent over a child (1 to 1)..

 

I thought this was an excellent distinction between parents and govts Nathan. It stands to reason that govts cannot ever know what's best for every individual under their authority, since those in power are unlikely to ever meet, let alone build a relationship with most of them. The closest group that might would be a tribe, for which every member would offer mutual exchange and value and they would all be well known to each other. In a modern setting this would be entirely voluntary of course, but the value this kind of mutuality offered would be the glue that held them together.

 

The moment you introduce overwhelming force continuously and throughout a whole person's life, you have the basis for slavery and not adulthood. Stef has often likened children to prisoners of their parents, but as I mentioned before, there comes a day when parents have no choice but to let them go..

[Mike Fleming]

You can have a parental situation that does not violate the non-aggression principle.  The children can be free to leave at any age if they want.  In practice very few do until they reach the age of 18 or so.  But it is a possibility.  Some children have such bad homes that they run away.  

 

If you can describe a government that also does not violate the non-aggression principle, then I would be willing to listen.

 

As children make the transition to adults they don't need parental care for the most part, and most choose not to have it.  There is no such choice with the government as it currently stands.  But like I said, I would be happy to listen to a concept of the government which does not violate the NAP.  None of the current ones fit that mould.

[Lians]

You're using a fallacious comparison as the core of your arguments. Yes, there's a power disparity in the parent-child relationship. There's also a power disparity between you and Microsoft. That doesn't mean you can equate Microsoft and parents to a government. Governments are a power disparity maintained through violence. That's what makes them immoral. If you get rid of the violence, there is no government. In this regard, the only conclusive statement you can make about power disparity in and of itself is that it carries the capacity for corruption.

[Amidoinitright]

 

 

Why is this? If parents can learn to be peaceful despite this huge power differential, why can't people who govern learn that too? Doesn't the very idea of peaceful parenting conflict with the idea that human beings simply can't handle huge levels of power over other humans with grace and care?

 Not even all parents manage to do this.  The parents who do manage to peacefully parent have something which no politician could possibly have for his constituents, Love. The well being of my daughters is paramount in every decision I make. I would give my life for my children. However, I only have 3 children. Trying to do what is best for my family is a whole lot easier than trying to know what is best for every family on my street, neighborhood, or town. In my family we have each others best interests at heart, as, I believe, does every (functional) family. I do not believe that is is possible as you scale this up to include people whom we hardly know. How could I possibly know whats best for your family? & more importantly, how could I know this better than you do? I cant. 

[Flake]

Since I think the main point of what I'm raising is getting lost, let me refocus this:

 

True or false? Human beings are capable of handling huge differentials of power over others with grace and care?

I don't think we know yet. Disparity of power is usually a problem, but it isn't the reason that the very idea of government is inherently flawed. Government must by necessity have control otherwise the government won't be the government. The government is a system, like all systems it does things which are necessary for survival, and this conflicts with what is best for the people who live under it. For example if you want to control someone, making sure they are dependent on you would be a good idea, but this certainly wouldn't be good for the person you want to control.

[STer]

I've read through the responses and I'm not going to respond individually to every one. But I'll respond overall and then address a few points people raised.

 

Perhaps predictably on a board about anarchism, people focused more on trying to prove government is bad even though my main point was not to argue whether it is good or bad. That is partly my own fault because when I titled the thread and in my OP I hadn't fully thought things through. Later in the thread, when I refocused it, I got to the point I really wanted to discuss. But still almost everybody responded with a general argument about the ills of government.

 

There can be all kinds of arguments for or against government. What I'm raising in this thread is simply a challenge to one of the arguments that Stefan often uses against government. That doesn't mean government is then good. There might be lots of other arguments against it. But my point was that if there is a contradiction in this one argument against government, it should not be used. He should stick to the other arguments against it and let this one go.

 

So the point was that Stefan often says that if you allow people to have a huge power differential over others, they will inevitably abuse it. However, his support for peaceful parenting shows that he doesn't consistently believe this is the case. It shows that he believes that, in some situations, people with great power can exercise restraint.

 

That is what this thread is about - the capacity of people with power to exercise restraint with regard to those over whom they have power.

 

To address a handful of things various people raised:

 

* Parents do have a monopoly on the legitimized use of force in the family. Parents are allowed to use force to discipline their children - at least in most of the world, including the US, and within limits. Children are not allowed to use force against the parents or against each other, other than perhaps in self-defense where it might be permitted (but even most states allow self-defense so that isn't any big difference.)

 

* Some people mentioned that scale is the issue. In a family, the parents know the kids very well, but in a larger social system, it's impossible for leaders to really know the people they are leading that well. That is true. But the point is why couldn't a person in that position say "It's impossible for me to really know all of these people very well, therefore I need to be very cautious in how I exercise this power. I need to show great restraint."? There is that key word - restraint. When a person has a child and suddenly is in a position of immense power over that child, Stefan feels they can choose to use that power with restraint and wisdom. But when a person ends up in a leadership position over a larger social system, he seems to think then they cannot exercise restraint and wisdom in exercising their power. I'm not sure why this difference.

 

* Someone mentioned step-parents being more abusive than regular parents. I agree. Step-parents enter the same nuclear family structure only with even less of a bond with the child usually. What I talked about is the situation that surrounded almost all human children for hundreds of thousands of years which is being around an extended biological family, all related to them by blood, from birth and not hidden away with a nuclear family at the whims of one or two people with nobody else able to see what's going on. In a situation like that, if just one of those parents is unstable or unhealthy, there is ample ability for abuse to be perpetrated and nobody really able to see what goes on. When the extended family is always around, it is harder to hide that kind of thing. There are constantly witnesses.

 

* Someone mentioned that no government in existence fails to violate the non-aggression principle. I guess this is meant to say that this shows people in such positions inevitably act aggressively and can't exercise restraint. But this form of argument as a rule is a fallacy. People try to use the same argument against anarchism. They say "Well if you can't show me a working large-scale anarchist society, that shows it's impossible." That's obviously not logical. Even if nobody currently in leadership showed restraint, it wouldn't mean they can't. And my main point is the difference in how Stefan approaches that same circumstance in parenting vs. social leadership. With parents, even if 99% of parents did not show restraint, he would be enthusiastic and hopeful that this can improve and very encouraging that we should work toward it, even if it takes generations to happen. But with social leaders, if they don't show restraint, he says "See, since you can't find examples of it, that just shows that putting people in positions like that inevitably leads to abuse." He doesn't say "I know it's very rare that they show restraint, but through education and growth, over generations, it can happen and we must work toward it." It seems like inconsistent logic.

[_LiveFree_]

So the point was that Stefan often says that if you allow people to have a huge power differential over others, they will inevitably abuse it. However, his support for peaceful parenting shows that he doesn't consistently believe this is the case. It shows that he believes that, in some situations, people with great power can exercise restraint.

 

 

 

To me, it seems, you are trying to combine two perspectives into one. I don't really follow. 

 

Please define "power" and "restraint".

[RestoringGuy]

That is what this thread is about - the capacity of people with power to exercise restraint with regard to those over whom they have power.

 

I would like to say I think you're on to something.  This is a matter of scale.  Consider if big space aliens landed and took us over, treating us all like children.  They might demonstrate a way of living that's vastly superior to ours, yet at the same time they must bind us and punish us because we are biologically simply too weak and dumb to carry out their better way of living without their direct and forced guidance.

 

Now you can rebel, and use self-defense and say freedom trumps the perceived need for us to live in this better way.   Even if successful it may shorten our lives because we break away from their alien tech.  So I hear things like government is different because "children need their parents to survive".  No.  That's simply not true in absolute terms, because children do not die instantly when their parents die.  Children may need parents to survive a bit longer.  But that is almost the same way people think about cops and the fire department.  It seems to me there are hidden assumptions when we say parents and government are fundamentally different.  There is an assumption of the way things ought to be.  Basically governments ought not try to pretend they can forcibly extend lifespan of others, but parents ought to be able to try.  So if an entity from space comes along to benevolently control us, not that it would ever happen, is it logically correct to assume their restraint is allowed as a legitimate excuse?

[STer]

To me, it seems, you are trying to combine two perspectives into one. I don't really follow. 

 

Please define "power" and "restraint".

 

I'm happy with these definitions from the dictionary:

 

Power - the possession of control or command over others;

 

Restraint - the act of restraining, holding back, controlling, or checking.

 

Restrain - to hold back from action; keep in check or under control; repress: to restrain one's temper.

 

In other words, a person in a position to exert a high level of control over others willingly chooses to limit that exertion of control out of compassion or wisdom. In the case of a parent, Stefan adamantly insists this is possible. In the case of leaders of societies, he seems to say this is not possible.

I would like to say I think you're on to something.  This is a matter of scale.  Consider if big space aliens landed and took us over, treating us all like children.  They might demonstrate a way of living that's vastly superior to ours, yet at the same time they must bind us and punish us because we are biologically simply too weak and dumb to carry out their better way of living without their direct and forced guidance.

 

Now you can rebel, and use self-defense and say freedom trumps the perceived need for us to live in this better way.   Even if successful it may shorten our lives because we break away from their alien tech.  So I hear things like government is different because "children need their parents to survive".  No.  That's simply not true in absolute terms, because children do not die instantly when their parents die.  Children may need parents to survive a bit longer.  But that is almost the same way people think about cops and the fire department.  It seems to me there are hidden assumptions when we say parents and government are fundamentally different.  There is an assumption of the way things ought to be.  Basically governments ought not try to pretend they can forcibly extend lifespan of others, but parents ought to be able to try.  So if an entity from space comes along to benevolently control us, not that it would ever happen, is it logically correct to assume their restraint is allowed as a legitimate excuse?

 

I think, again, this is a change of subject. This has nothing to do with whether governments or parents' power is legitimate, which is a whole separate question. This is just about the apparent double standard of saying that people can restrain their power in a parental role, but cannot restrain their power in leadership roles within society at large. I don't see why one would be the case and not the other.

 

If a person can say "I am so much more powerful than this child, but I need to use that power wisely and for their best interest" why can't the same person, as mayor of a city or congressman or Senator or anything else say "I am so much more powerful than the people I represent, but I need to use that power wisely and for their best interest." Again, forget about whether it's legitimate for them to have that power in the first place. Once they do have that power, why this double standard?

[RestoringGuy]

I think, again, this is a change of subject. This has nothing to do with whether governments or parents' power is legitimate, which is a whole separate question. This is just about the apparent double standard of saying that people can restrain their power in a parental role, but cannot restrain their power in leadership roles within society at large. I don't see why one would be the case and not the other.

 

If a person can say "I am so much more powerful than this child, but I need to use that power wisely and for their best interest" why can't the same person, as mayor of a city or congressman or Senator or anything else say "I am so much more powerful than the people I represent, but I need to use that power wisely and for their best interest." Again, forget about whether it's legitimate for them to have that power in the first place. Once they do have that power, why this double standard?

Right!  No change of subject.  The standard answer is always essentially "adults and children are biologically different, but politically powerful and powerless people are biologically the same".  That is why I mention the alien thing.  If politicians had tulips growing out their ears, they are now biologically different.  So I ask more specifically, why the double-standard, now that biology is all that is used to set the standards?

[STer]

Right!  No change of subject.  The standard answer is always essentially "adults and children are biologically different, but politically powerful and powerless people are biologically the same".  That is why I mention the alien thing.  If politicians had tulips growing out their ears, they are now biologically different.  So I ask more specifically, why the double-standard, now that biology is all that is used to set the standards?

I'm not understanding. The children are not relevant to the double standard. This is all about the adults and their restraint capacities. Often the adults are even the exact same person - someone who has children and also may be a social leader simultaneously. Stefan says that as a parent this person can learn to exercise restraint, but as a social leader this very same person cannot.

[aeonicentity]

I think fundamentally it comes down to the fact that children are by nature dependent on things you do for them. For example, you have rules in the house like "Sit at the table for dinner" because you're the one who's taking the responsibility to feed the child, and damnit, you're not chasing after them to do it. However, once a child grows up enough to determine these things for themselves (Whatever phase that is depends on the child), they may choose to eat dinner outside, or at the TV, or what have you. Hopefully they'll choose to sit at the table because they like you, and enjoy your company, and value the family values you instill on them.

 

governments on the other hand rule over functional adults (mostly) and make their rules. The argument could be made that there are people who are incapable of doing things for themselves and therefore we need government, but then we get back to the core argument, which is "do you think people are capable enough to govern themselves."the critical difference between statists and libertarians of all stripes is that by and large statists answer that question "No" and libertarians answer that question "Yes".

[STer]

I think fundamentally it comes down to the fact that children are by nature dependent on things you do for them. For example, you have rules in the house like "Sit at the table for dinner" because you're the one who's taking the responsibility to feed the child, and damnit, you're not chasing after them to do it. However, once a child grows up enough to determine these things for themselves (Whatever phase that is depends on the child), they may choose to eat dinner outside, or at the TV, or what have you. Hopefully they'll choose to sit at the table because they like you, and enjoy your company, and value the family values you instill on them.

 

governments on the other hand rule over functional adults (mostly) and make their rules. The argument could be made that there are people who are incapable of doing things for themselves and therefore we need government, but then we get back to the core argument, which is "do you think people are capable enough to govern themselves."the critical difference between statists and libertarians of all stripes is that by and large statists answer that question "No" and libertarians answer that question "Yes".

 

I'm sorry but from this response I'm guessing you didn't read the thread at all. I am not asking "Why is parental power legitimate and government power illegitimate?" I'm asking "Why does Stefan consider people in a position of power as parents capable of restraint in the exercise of that power, but people in a position of power as social leaders incapable of restraint in the exercise of that power?"

[Flake]

 I am not asking "Why is parental power legitimate and government power illegitimate?" I'm asking "Why does Stefan consider people in a position of power as parents capable of restraint in the exercise of that power, but people in a position of power as social leaders incapable of restraint in the exercise of that power?"

I can't speak for Stefan but the answer to your question has been alluded to already. Just not made explicit. (I haven't read all the responses carefully.) Parents have a strong incentive not to screw their kids up. Despite this many parents still do. Social leaders on the other hand have little incentive to use restraint when exercising power. (This doesn't make them incapable of restraint. They just don't have enough incentive to stop them from abusing their power.) If parents, who are informed that their actions may screw their kid up, sometimes can't help themselves, then it doesn't bode well for social leaders.

[STer]

I can't speak for Stefan but the answer to your question has been alluded to already. Just not made explicit. (I haven't read all the responses carefully.) Parents have a strong incentive not to screw their kids up. Despite this many parents still do. Social leaders on the other hand have little incentive to use restraint when exercising power. (This doesn't make them incapable of restraint. They just don't have enough incentive to stop them from abusing their power.) If parents, who are informed that their actions may screw their kid up, sometimes can't help themselves, then it doesn't bode well for social leaders.

 

So basically the idea is that the closeness and love a parent has for the child is what can help them restrain their potential abuses of power, but a social leader does not have enough of that closeness and love for those in his society to similarly restrain him or her? Yeah, I don't know if that's what Stefan would say is the reason for the difference. But at least it's an explanation that could make sense. Thank you.

[Maik]

Very good thread. But it has a simple answer - government isn't parents. That's why it can not be peaceful. Unless people are ok with SM (sado-mazo) relationship, there is nothing peacefull in there.

 

Furthemore, while parents have more rational thinking capabilities than children, government does not have this attribute over the population, because everyone else is more or less an adult too. There are more differencies, but I think that analogy is false.

[JSDev]

@STer I think you're justified in raising these questions, I just think you might be conflating parental power with government power for the sake of argument. However, there really is an unequivocal difference. There could NEVER be a peaceful government because its whole existence is predicated on being defined wholly on its use of force. No force, no government. Period. Parents on the other hand are not defined by their monopoly of force over children. That's why you can have peaceful parenting and not peaceful government.

continued...

 

further, on the idea of restraint. I'm not sure what that even means when used in the context of government force. In what way can an armed robber use restraint when pilfering your wallet? By saying "please"?

[aeonicentity]

I'm sorry but from this response I'm guessing you didn't read the thread at all. I am not asking "Why is parental power legitimate and government power illegitimate?" I'm asking "Why does Stefan consider people in a position of power as parents capable of restraint in the exercise of that power, but people in a position of power as social leaders incapable of restraint in the exercise of that power?"

oh, i'm sorry, I did read your post, but I must have gotten something else out of if than you intended.

[LifeIsBrief]

I'm sorry but from this response I'm guessing you didn't read the thread at all. I am not asking "Why is parental power legitimate and government power illegitimate?" I'm asking "Why does Stefan consider people in a position of power as parents capable of restraint in the exercise of that power, but people in a position of power as social leaders incapable of restraint in the exercise of that power?"

The Amish... That's why.  Religion... Pacifism.  A government is incapable, of exercising restraint of power, because it must always tax equally, even to the pacifists.  Thus it must initiate force, to pay for its military, with the money of people who are fundamentally morally opposed to funding a military.

 

If a "leader" was to allow people opposed to the military to "opt out" of military taxes, everyone would stop paying.  So, it is inherently impossible to maintain power in the current system, without initiating force by punishing a minority who oppose your views and making them pay for weapons they don't believe in.  If a social leader were to create a system, where people could choose not to pay taxes they were opposed to, a voluntary system, it would no longer be a government, it would be a charity.

[Mike Fleming]

 

 

* Someone mentioned that no government in existence fails to violate the non-aggression principle. I guess this is meant to say that this shows people in such positions inevitably act aggressively and can't exercise restraint. But this form of argument as a rule is a fallacy. People try to use the same argument against anarchism. They say "Well if you can't show me a working large-scale anarchist society, that shows it's impossible." That's obviously not logical. Even if nobody currently in leadership showed restraint, it wouldn't mean they can't. And my main point is the difference in how Stefan approaches that same circumstance in parenting vs. social leadership. With parents, even if 99% of parents did not show restraint, he would be enthusiastic and hopeful that this can improve and very encouraging that we should work toward it, even if it takes generations to happen. But with social leaders, if they don't show restraint, he says "See, since you can't find examples of it, that just shows that putting people in positions like that inevitably leads to abuse." He doesn't say "I know it's very rare that they show restraint, but through education and growth, over generations, it can happen and we must work toward it." It seems like inconsistent logic.

 

 

No, I am saying that government, as it is defined in our world, DOES violate the NAP.  It MUST violate the NAP or it couldn't exist.  If someone can show a form of government that wouldn't violate the NAP, then put forth their theory of how that would work.

 

But government as it currently exists, in all places around earth, is a violation of human rights.  No human has rights above any other.  No human has the right to aggress toward any other human.

 

There is no such necessity for parents to violate the NAP.  Some do, some don't.

[STer]

Very good thread. But it has a simple answer - government isn't parents. That's why it can not be peaceful. Unless people are ok with SM (sado-mazo) relationship, there is nothing peacefull in there.

 

Furthemore, while parents have more rational thinking capabilities than children, government does not have this attribute over the population, because everyone else is more or less an adult too. There are more differencies, but I think that analogy is false.

 

I think I specified about three times that this was not the point of the thread to compare legitimacy of government vs. legitimacy of parents or whether government and parents are the same thing. It is not relevant that parents and government in general have differences. The question is about the capacity of a person - sometimes even the same person - to show restraint in one setting and supposedly not in the other.

 

Stefan is a big fan of a sort of symmetry. How you view the government is a reflection of how you view parents and so on.

 

So why isn't it a symmetry that the same person who at home, with children , wisely uses his power with restraint then goes to his government job and acts with restraint there too? A better way to think of this is:

 

Can't Bob, who has learned to restrain his use of power over his children also learn to restrain his use of power when he goes to his public sector job? Stefan seems to be saying that he can learn to restrain his power at home with his kids, but there is no way he can learn the same restraint in his government job.

 

I hope I don't have to clarify this another time. The question is about this person in his dual roles, not about parents vs. government in general.

@STer I think you're justified in raising these questions, I just think you might be conflating parental power with government power for the sake of argument. However, there really is an unequivocal difference. There could NEVER be a peaceful government because its whole existence is predicated on being defined wholly on its use of force. No force, no government. Period. Parents on the other hand are not defined by their monopoly of force over children. That's why you can have peaceful parenting and not peaceful government.

continued...

 

further, on the idea of restraint. I'm not sure what that even means when used in the context of government force. In what way can an armed robber use restraint when pilfering your wallet? By saying "please"?

 

When I titled this thread and made my first post, I hadn't fully thought through things. After about one or two posts, I realized I hadn't quite named things precisely and this thread has paid the price ever since. No matter how many times I try to clarify, it seems like people continue to respond as if the original title of the thread is what I really meant to ask. I keep posting with my newly refocused framing of things, but people continue to respond as if the question is the way it is in the thread title.

 

I don't think your analogy does your argument any favor. Of course an armed robber can use more or less restraint. That's why some of them end up killing their victim and some of them go as far as changing their mind and letting their victim go.

The Amish... That's why.  Religion... Pacifism.  A government is incapable, of exercising restraint of power, because it must always tax equally, even to the pacifists.  Thus it must initiate force, to pay for its military, with the money of people who are fundamentally morally opposed to funding a military.

 

If a "leader" was to allow people opposed to the military to "opt out" of military taxes, everyone would stop paying.  So, it is inherently impossible to maintain power in the current system, without initiating force by punishing a minority who oppose your views and making them pay for weapons they don't believe in.  If a social leader were to create a system, where people could choose not to pay taxes they were opposed to, a voluntary system, it would no longer be a government, it would be a charity.

 

But different people within governments do exercise different levels of restraint of power. That's why, at least in some cases, taxes go up and down. Some people in government want more restraint and lower taxes, some want less restraint and higher taxes. And some governments have larger or smaller militaries, even accounting for what they could afford, because some people in some governments prefer to restrain military power and some prefer to expand it.

 

As far as the Amish, look at this, which explains about the Amish:

 

"They are not required to pay into any tax system that is against their beliefs and correspondingly do not receive the benefits of these programs.

 

The Amish believe in taking care of their own, and most are against insurance policies. They don't believe in Social Security because it is a form of insurance; thus, they are not required to pay into the program.

 

Individuals within the Amish community are exempt from paying into Medicare as well. Like Social Security, Medicare is interpreted as a form of insurance.

 

Due to Biblical interpretation, the Amish believe in living apart from the outside world. Amish religious beliefs and practices are protected by U.S. laws, which include exemption from certain government programs and military duty."

 

These all look like examples of restraint on the part of our government toward the Amish.

No, I am saying that government, as it is defined in our world, DOES violate the NAP.  It MUST violate the NAP or it couldn't exist.  If someone can show a form of government that wouldn't violate the NAP, then put forth their theory of how that would work.

 

But government as it currently exists, in all places around earth, is a violation of human rights.  No human has rights above any other.  No human has the right to aggress toward any other human.

 

There is no such necessity for parents to violate the NAP.  Some do, some don't.

 

It seems like all that it would take for a government not to violate NAP is that it exist to serve those who want it and those who don't want it be able to opt out. If a system worked that way, I'd say it could still be called a government. So I don't think violating the NAP is inherent in the word government. The NAP violations come when a government goes beyond serving those who support it to refusing to let those who don't opt out. You may be right that no examples of such a government exist today. But as I pointed out, that's not any more relevant than anarchists think it is when someone says there is no example of a large-scale working anarchist society today either. Not existing currently does not mean impossible.

 

As for the other side, I bet you'd be hard-pressed to seriously find any parent that hasn't violated the NAP. Even the best-intentioned parent probably, at times, has to use some amount of force to get their kids to brush their teeth or go to the doctor - things that we all agree are truly in the child's best interest. I'm pretty sure even Stefan says he has done that as a last resort at times.