Why Is Peaceful Parenting Possible but Peaceful Government Not Possible?

[Mike Fleming]

 

I wouldn't consider trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities forced to be paid by future generations a net reduction in violence.  I also don't think you can say that an institution committed to using violence really ever gets "more peaceful."  I think they instead use bribes and threats to a greater extent, which only makes it seem more peaceful.  There is always the spectre of escalation just over the horizon.

 

 

It's kind of like the parent who says do as I say and I won't spank you anymore.  You do as you're told and there is no more violence.   But it doesn't take away the threat of violence.  Nor does it give you freedom.  The reverse happens, you've lost your freedom and are doing what a tyrant wants to keep the "peace".

[kalmia]

If government is a projection of family structure, what will those raised peacefully end up doing? Will they try to project this peaceful structure onto something? Or having had all their developmental needs met, will they be comfortable and desire fully being an adult who does not seek a parent in fictional entities such as the state? All anarchists I see are reacting to corrupt childhood authority. What are emotionally healthy anarchists like? I think the real test for Stefan's claim is his daughter in a decade or so. Will she see no need for outside entities? 

[STer]

 The greater the power disparity, the easier it is to abuse that power.  But you can have a disparity of power without it being abusive, and that is what makes peaceful parenting possible.

 

The main point of the thread when I started it came from the fact that I am pretty sure Stefan has said that the disparity of power between parent and child is the greatest in the world. A parent has even more power over a helpless child than the state has over its population. So that logic you stated in the line above would lead one to believe it is easier to abuse parental power than state power and less likely for parental power to be restrained than state power. If greater disparity = greater chance of abuse, then parental power would be more likely to be abused according to what Stefan said.

 

Or is Stefan wrong when he says that the parent's power over the child is the greatest disparity? Or am I mistaken and he never said it? I can't remember exactly where I heard him say it, but I'm pretty confident I did and that, when I did, I understood why he said that. Perhaps it was during the Joe Rogan interview that he said it? I imagine it's the kind of thing that he might have said multiple times when explaining how wrong violence against children is.

I thought you made a great point, but I want to quibble with this bit. Is it really a government if it's not a violent monopoly?

 

People keep misunderstanding this point. A government may have the monopoly on being allowed to initiate violence. That doesn't mean they have to use violence. Just that they are allowed to if they choose to (within particular limits depending on the situation). I think this is why people keep misunderstanding when some of us say that a government can be based on voluntaryism. They equate "monopoly on being allowed to use force" with "being required to use force". So they then conclude that unless it uses violence, it isn't a government.

I wouldn't consider trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities forced to be paid by future generations a net reduction in violence.

 

I found this comment fascinating given the recent hubbub about Peter Joseph's "structural violence" concept. Here you seem to label putting future generations into debt as a form of violence. Yet nobody is actually initiating force against those currently not-yet-existing beings. Perhaps this is a bridge between the two views? On this forum, every time any idea of violence beyond physical attack, threat, or fraud is mentioned, people get very upset and say it's manipulative. They want the word "violence" defined as narrowly as possible. But what do you call stealing from unborn future generations? Can you call it violent? If not, what do you call it? Surely it is as bad, if not worse, than many forms of violence, whatever you want to call it. And yet, clearly it isn't quite the same as attacking a living being or stealing from their house.

 

When those future generations are born, and they suffer due to the debts laid upon them before their birth, even though nobody may have directly committed a violent act against them in person, might this be a reasonable idea of what someone like PJ might call "structural violence" that we could agree on? They may never have been directly attacked by a person in their life, but they suffer the violence - or whatever word you prefer to use - of the structure into which they were born, which has sucked their wealth out of them.

No it's not the concentration of power that bothers anarchists, after all google has a lot of concentrated power over data but we don't view that as immoral, it is the monopoly power to initiate violence that is immoral. Once again you seem to be missing the point. If I have a boss because I work for a company, he has quite a bit of power over whether I have the job or not, and an anarchist wouldn't say that is problematic and we need to diffuse that power or whatever, because force is not involved in that interaction. The parent/child relationship has the potential for abuse, the government guarantees abuse.

 

When a government sends you a refund, where does it get the money from? Oh right theft. How does the government have the ability to hire volunteers for its military? Oh right it needs to steal money in order to pay for their salaries. When I say the government can't do anything without force I'm saying that any action they take is only possible because of force. Without theft there would be no military or tax refunds or whatever.

 

Wow I'm starting to understand where you're coming from, that argument is one hell of a twisted logical pretzel. Of course government can force people to do things against their will, but if people (to clarify, I mean society, not necessarily the individual person) view the government as legitimate authority or necessary like you argued one paragraph prior, then they will go along with it. I'm not arguing that violence only works when people think it is legitimate, I'm arguing that violence on the scale of the government is only possible if it is viewed as legitimate by the majority of people. The reason being quite logical, those in charge of the government are vastly outnumbered by the people they rule. If I try to control you with violence it is certainly possible if I'm bigger and stronger. If I try to control your whole neighborhood with violence it becomes much harder to do on my own, but a whole lot easier if your neighbors think that what I'm doing is actually morally good.

 

Sorry I wasn't specific, but I agree, and I was talking about the concentration of power to use violence all along in my example. If you look at what I mentioned - adults always having power over kids and bigger, stronger adults always potentially having power over some other adults - I'm referring to the ability to use force. That is what Stefan says we should not allow to be concentrated. And so, I am simply pointing out that just as anarchists want decentralization of that power to use force by the government, there have been many, many societies that also decentralized the power adults in the community, including parents, have to use force in an isolated way against children.

 

Someone said the government uses force in every action they do. I simply pointed out a couple where they don't. You can say they use force to take your taxes. But the fact that they give you a refund if you overpay says something. It says there are limits to how far they are willing or able to go. That's all I was pointing out. They don't just use violence nonstop in every single action they do. There are limits and boundaries to it. There are even cases where the government gets sued by a citizen and the court - another branch of government - finds for the citizen against the government. So I'm just pointing out that this is more complex than just "government uses violence nonstop 24-7 to the ultimate maximum capability." You have to remember that the people in government are themselves citizens also. They may work for the government, but they also can be potential targets of the government. So most people have mixed feelings in this. Their families may not be in the government at all. So they may go to work for the government in the morning, and at night be suing the government for mistreating a family member. It's not as black and white as people sometimes make it.

 

Those in government are vastly outnumbered yes. But even if large numbers came to see them as illegitimate, that still wouldn't mean anything unless those large numbers were willing and able to do anything about it. They not only would have to question the legitimacy but be willing to do something about it and have a strategy to do something about it. Those are pretty big steps. I think the view that politicians are a bunch of lying bums is cliche. It's almost a given. Everyone knows that. When Jay Leno jokes about what bums they are everyone laughs because they all know that. But that's a far cry from caring enough to turn off the TV and do anything about it. It's not just about numbers, but about commitment level.

If government is a projection of family structure, what will those raised peacefully end up doing? Will they try to project this peaceful structure onto something? Or having had all their developmental needs met, will they be comfortable and desire fully being an adult who does not seek a parent in fictional entities such as the state? All anarchists I see are reacting to corrupt childhood authority. What are emotionally healthy anarchists like? I think the real test for Stefan's claim is his daughter in a decade or so. Will she see no need for outside entities? 

 

I often wonder something along these lines too. Once you cross the line from railing against the entities that represent your projected childhood wounds to no longer doing so, then what? What drives people when they are so healthy they no longer have this "railing against" going on?

[Kevin Beal]

People keep misunderstanding this point. A government may have the monopoly on being allowed to initiate violence. That doesn't mean they have to use violence. Just that they are allowed to if they choose to (within particular limits depending on the situation). I think this is why people keep misunderstanding when some of us say that a government can be based on voluntaryism. They equate "monopoly on being allowed to use force" with "being required to use force". So they then conclude that unless it uses violence, it isn't a government.

What was your childhood like? Were disputes resolved lovingly with win-win negotiation? A peaceful monopoly on violence is a contradiction in terms.

[STer]

What was your childhood like? Were disputes resolved lovingly with win-win negotiation? A peaceful monopoly on violence is a contradiction in terms.

 

You continue to improperly use terms. It is not a "monopoly on violence", but a monopoly on the potential to use violence in a way considered legitimate. That means the possibility to use violence if it is chosen - and within certain limits (even the government in most cases does have some limits and is sometimes restrained, often even by other branches of the same government) - without punishment or retaliation, etc.

 

Perhaps you mean the same thing, but I think it's important to emphasize that having what you are calling a "monopoly on violence" does not mean violence has to actually be used, only that it can be used. You speak of it as if it is an obligation to use violence, rather than simply an option that is allowed that entity.

 

As for asking about my childhood, that is a non-sequitir in this particular case. Not that childhood isn't relevant to many things and how we feel about them. But it's not relevant to the distinction between "monopoly on violence" and "monopoly on the option to use violence in certain situations in a way that has been legitimized."

[JSDev]

@STer you really don't seem to understand. You have to use violence to even have the monopoly on the option to use violence. (Anyway, what a completely ridiculous statement to make, and it only shows you to be a sophist). Look, taxes are theft. National debt is theft. Theft is violence... in the case of the state it's the kind of violence that can lead to kidnapping or even death. The one thing Stefan is really good at is helping people to see through the sugar coated word clouds we like to use to justify violence. You seem to be doing everything you can to excuse or to allow some level of violence by the state. Why is that?

[STer]

@STer you really don't seem to understand. You have to use violence to even have the monopoly on the option to use violence. (Anyway, what a completely ridiculous statement to make, and it only shows you to be a sophist). Look, taxes are theft. National debt is theft. Theft is violence... in the case of the state it's the kind of violence that can lead to kidnapping or even death. The one thing Stefan is really good at is helping people to see through the sugar coated word clouds we like to use to justify violence. You seem to be doing everything you can to excuse or to allow some level of violence by the state. Why is that?

 

You seem to be arguing with straw men all over the place. You certainly aren't responding to things I've actually said.

 

All I said is that being allowed to use violence does not require that you use it. We say the state has a monopoly on being allowed to use force sometimes, but that is false. Parents are allowed to use force legally against their own children, as well. In many places, teachers were also once allowed to use force against children legally.

 

If you believe peaceful parenting is possible, then you believe that parents, despite being allowed to use violence, can choose not to use it. If they stop using it, that doesn't mean they aren't still allowed to. They may well still be allowed to.

 

I don't know why anybody is finding this very complicated. Being allowed to do something is a different thing than being required to do it.

 

If you think being allowed to do something = being required to do it, feel free to argue that. If you argue something else like "The state is bad and uses violence." then you aren't responding to me since I never argued anything about the general goodness or badness of the state and, in fact, more than once posted specifically that I was NOT discussing that topic so please not to respond as if I am.

[Kevin Beal]

All I said is that being allowed to use violence does not require that you use it. We say the state has a monopoly on being allowed to use force sometimes, but that is false. Parents are allowed to use force legally against their own children, as well. In many places, teachers were also once allowed to use force against children legally.

And if the state were to decide that this is a no go, then that would be stopped using the threat of violence. Being a monopoly doesn't mean that no one else ever does it. That's a strawman

[JamesP]

Not sure what Peter Joseph or structural violence have to do with this.

 

The violence against future generations that I'm referring to is that they will be taxed in order to pay the debts, and the tax burden is expected to increase due to this as well. Deferred violence isn't peace.

[Lowe D]

Taxes won't necessarily rise.  That's a function of the private economy, as much as the public sector.  The only constraint on federal budgets is that they can't be so high as to cause excessive price inflation.  The national debt number is the base money the Treasury has created through its debt issuance.  It doesn't mean, this much must be collected in taxes.

 

National debt issuance is inflationary because the bonds tend to end up being bought by banks, which create money by adding deposits (debts) to their balance sheets, in order to buy the bonds... either from the Treasury or from whoever bought them from the Treasury originally.

 

Inflationary events don't guarantee price inflation, though, since there may be other events occurring which are deflationary.  The expansion or contraction of private credit has more to do with whether there will be price inflation, because the private credit market is larger than the national debt.

 

The national gov'ts of developed nations don't even have to collect taxes.  They have a guaranteed market in their debt, with the large banks holding accounts at in the central banks.  National taxes are an anachronism.

[STer]

And if the state were to decide that this is a no go, then that would be stopped using the threat of violence. Being a monopoly doesn't mean that no one else ever does it. That's a strawman

 

I can't even decipher what you're getting at.

 

Here is my statement - "A monopoly on being allowed to use violence =/= being required to use violence".

 

Is that statement true or false? Anything else you say about this beyond explaining why that statement is true or false is you responding to things I haven't put forth. You are, of course, welcome to do so. But it doesn't make much sense doing it in response to a quote from me unless you're responding to what I actually said.

 

Edit: Oh now I at least see what you were referring to - the parental thing. No a monopoly on being allowed to use violence doesn't mean nobody else does it. But, as I pointed out, parents don't just do it, but are allowed to do it, just as the state is allowed to do it. Both are allowed to do it for the same reason - because it's in the law. The law says the state can use violence and that parents can use violence, within certain conditions. A monopoly on being allowed to use violence does indeed require that that be the only entity allowed to use violence. That's what a monopoly on being allowed to do something is.

Not sure what Peter Joseph or structural violence have to do with this.The violence against future generations that I'm referring to is that they will be taxed in order to pay the debts, and the tax burden is expected to increase due to this as well. Deferred violence isn't peace.

 

Most people on the FDR forums insist on a very narrow definition of "violence." To be called "violence" an act must include direct attack, theft or fraud or threat of such against an actual human being. Whenever someone tries to get away with using the word "violence" in any other way, most people here call bs on it. This is why they react so strongly against PJ's concept of "structural violence." They insist that, in each example he gives of "structural violence," he identify a specific actor who is committing an attack, theft or fraud directly on another human being. If he can't do it, they claim the use of that phrase is propaganda to label something as violent that is not violent.

 

Yet here, you seem to be using the word "violence" in a way that goes beyond that narrow definition people are usually held to here. You are talking about accumulating debts that eventually will cause suffering for a currently unborn person. This seems to me the type of thing that usually would be called out as stretching the definition of "violence." Can you commit violence against a person that doesn't yet exist? Does the FDR community accept that use of the word "violence" even though they certainly won't accept that word in the types of situations PJ brings up?

 

I just find it curious.

[JSDev]

You seem to be arguing with straw men all over the place. You certainly aren't responding to things I've actually said.

 

All I said is that being allowed to use violence does not require that you use it. We say the state has a monopoly on being allowed to use force sometimes, but that is false. Parents are allowed to use force legally against their own children, as well. In many places, teachers were also once allowed to use force against children legally.

 

If you believe peaceful parenting is possible, then you believe that parents, despite being allowed to use violence, can choose not to use it. If they stop using it, that doesn't mean they aren't still allowed to. They may well still be allowed to.

 

I don't know why anybody is finding this very complicated. Being allowed to do something is a different thing than being required to do it.

 

If you think being allowed to do something = being required to do it, feel free to argue that. If you argue something else like "The state is bad and uses violence." then you aren't responding to me since I never argued anything about the general goodness or badness of the state and, in fact, more than once posted specifically that I was NOT discussing that topic so please not to respond as if I am.

 

I apologize if I've mischaracterized your question. I'm sincerely trying to understand what it is you're asking. Thank you for clarifying.

 

Parents become parents only by virtue of giving birth to children. It's just an obvious fact of nature. It's this fact that makes it our moral obligation to care for and nurture them. Conversely, the existence of the state is not natural, and there is no moral obligation for it to exist or for it to provide for us.

[STer]

I apologize if I've mischaracterized your question. I'm sincerely trying to understand what it is you're asking. Thank you for clarifying.

 

Parents become parents only by virtue of giving birth to children. It's just an obvious fact of nature. It's this fact that makes it our moral obligation to care for and nurture them. Conversely, the existence of the state is not natural, and there is no moral obligation for it to exist or for it to provide for us.

 

So I type:

 

"If you argue something else like "The state is bad and uses violence." then you aren't responding to me since I never argued anything about the general goodness or badness of the state and, in fact, more than once posted specifically that I was NOT discussing that topic so please not to respond as if I am."

 

and in response you explain once again why the state should not exist. Even when I point out that I'm not saying anything about the goodness or badness, in general of the state, I get a reply about that topic.

 

Perhaps this is a way to clarify it that people will understand.

 

People on FDR, including Stefan, are fond of saying that the state actually doesn't even exist. All that exists are individuals in costumes. If you believe that, then stop saying if "the state" is good or bad. It doesn't exist according to you.

 

What does exist, according to you, are the individuals.

 

Now these individuals are not some foreign governmental creatures. They're people from the population. 99% of the people that work in the government are everyday people that live in your neighborhood, send their kids to the same schools as yours and so on.

 

These people are expected to restrain themselves in all of their other roles, including as parents. But there is this idea that as soon as they step foot into their government job, they are now unable to control themselves. I found this to be a strange contradiction. As I've said over and over and over in this thread, the thread is about that individual that plays dual roles and why we think he has the capacity for restraint in one role, but not in the other.

 

To be honest, if you reread the thread, we already sort of got to the point where people conceded that he can restrain himself. Some said he just can't restrain himself completely because if he did he'd lose the job. Others said he can restrain himself, but not as fully as he can in some other jobs.

[Kevin Beal]

Hey STer, could you please try and sell me on the idea that peaceful parenting is possible, but peaceful government is not possible? I realize that you don't see it this way, or are at least skeptical, which is fine, but I'd love it if you'd indulge me and try and make this case yourself.

 

How would you argue that peaceful government is not possible, but peaceful parenting is?

[STer]

Hey STer, could you please try and sell me on the idea that peaceful parenting is possible, but peaceful government is not possible? I realize that you don't see it this way, or are at least skeptical, which is fine, but I'd love it if you'd indulge me and try and make this case yourself.

 

How would you argue that peaceful government is not possible, but peaceful parenting is?

 

I'm happy to participate in this type of thought experiment. But I've already made clear multiple times in the thread that my initial post and my title of the thread were a bit misguided. It took me a post or two to reframe what I was actually getting at and at that point I mentioned that I wished I could change the title of the thread.

 

So again, my question in the thread ended up not being about "peaceful parenting vs. peaceful government" but more about if a person can restrain their exercise of power as a parent, can they also restrain their exercise of power as a government worker.

[JSDev]

 

People on FDR, including Stefan, are fond of saying that the state actually doesn't even exist. All that exists are individuals in costumes. If you believe that, then stop saying if "the state" is good or bad. It doesn't exist according to you.

 

 

I understand that, but it really doesn't make a difference. It's implied that when I say "the state" that what I'm really talking about are individuals. Our relationship with our children is still fundamentally different from that of some individual who has given himself the right to take my property. Yes I have power over my child but that's a natural power given to us not because we have power but because the child is powerless. There is no moral obligation for my neighbors to have power over me. By simply taking that power from me without my consent, that alone makes it immoral, precisely because we're talking about individuals. Because I have not given consent, this power must be taken through the use of violence. There is no place on the restraint spectrum, unless at absolute zero, where we can say it's moral. The question of restraint is really irrelevant. It's a question of whether or not an individual as a parent or community member is acting morally. Of course if a parent can act morally then so could an individual "government worker". Individuals make those kinds of choices all the time. Realize though that there can be no morality in government work. If a government worker chooses to be moral then they choose to stop being a government worker. If you turn around and say but what about a voluntary government, then I know you're not seriously asking questions. If it's voluntary then it's individuals acting morally. Great, then WTF are we debating??

[STer]

I understand that, but it really doesn't make a difference. It's implied that when I say "the state" that what I'm really talking about are individuals. Our relationship with our children is still fundamentally different from that of some individual who has given himself the right to take my property. Yes I have power over my child but that's a natural power given to us not because we have power but because the child is powerless. There is no moral obligation for my neighbors to have power over me. By simply taking that power from me without my consent, that alone makes it immoral, precisely because we're talking about individuals. Because I have not given consent, this power must be taken through the use of violence. There is no place on the restraint spectrum, unless at absolute zero, where we can say it's moral. The question of restraint is really irrelevant. It's a question of whether or not an individual as a parent or community member is acting morally. Of course if a parent can act morally then so could an individual "government worker". Individuals make those kinds of choices all the time. Realize though that there can be no morality in government work. If a government worker chooses to be moral then they choose to stop being a government worker. If you turn around and say but what about a voluntary government, then I know you're not seriously asking questions. If it's voluntary then it's individuals acting morally. Great, then WTF are we debating??

 

So in this post you've argued that "there is no moral obligation for my neighbors to have power over me." I've never raised this issue.

 

You've argued that the state is not moral. I've never raised this issue (and repeatedly, including just recently directly to you, pointed out that I am not raising this issue."

 

You then say "if a parent can act morally then so can a government worker." Except I never asked if they can "act morally." I said can they restrain their exercise of power.

 

So you are typing sentence after sentence arguing with straw men and answering questions I didn't ask. Meanwhile, the question I'm asking is a pretty straightforward yes or no question. Can a person who restrains their exercise of power as a parent also restrain their exercise of power as a government worker. I can see putting a line or two of qualification to your yes or no answer. But other than that, it's really not that complicated a question. Either you believe he can or you don't.

 

Notice the questions I didn't ask. I didn't ask "Is government moral?" I didn't ask "Do you think the government is necessary?" I didn't ask "Do you prefer the person quit his government job?" If you want to talk about those questions, you can raise them. But I haven't raised them.

[JSDev]

Can a person who restrains their exercise of power as a parent also restrain their exercise of power as a government worker. I can see putting a line or two of qualification to your yes or no answer. But other than that, it's really not that complicated a question. Either you believe he can or you don't.

 

 

I believe I answered that question in the affirmative:

 

Of course if a parent can act morally then so could an individual "government worker". Individuals make those kinds of choices all the time. Realize though that there can be no morality in government work. If a government worker chooses to be moral then they choose to stop being a government worker.

 

Forget about labels like parents or government workers and only think of individuals. Your question boils down to, can an individual decide to be moral? My answer is yes of course!

[STer]

I believe I answered that question in the affirmative:

 

 

Forget about labels like parents or government workers and only think of individuals. Your question boils down to, can an individual decide to be moral? My answer is yes of course!

 

OK then thank you for your answer.

 

"Parent" and "government worker" are roles that individuals play. So I am thinking only of individuals. But individuals act differently depending on the role they are fulfilling at that moment.

 

My question does NOT boil down to "can an individual decide to be moral" and I've made that clear umpteen times. That is a far broader question and one that requires a lot of clarifications and qualifications. I only asked about the possibility of restraint in exercise of power. Just restraint, not even cessation of exercise of power.

 

Thank you for the answer. That is all I was asking.

[JSDev]

OK then thank you for your answer. "Parent" and "government worker" are roles that individuals play. So I am thinking only of individuals. But individuals act differently depending on the role they are fulfilling at that moment. My question does NOT boil down to "can an individual decide to be moral" and I've made that clear umpteen times. That is a far broader question and one that requires a lot of clarifications and qualifications. I only asked about the possibility of restraint in exercise of power. Just restraint, not even cessation of exercise of power. Thank you for the answer. That is all I was asking.

Isn't the question of restraint necessarily a question of morality? Why does the role you play in society have anything to do with you doing the right thing or not?

[STer]

Isn't the question of restraint necessarily a question of morality? Why does the role you play in society have anything to do with you doing the right thing or not?

 

Morality is much broader than just restraint. As many people have pointed out, you can do a horrible thing, but just do a bit less of it, and I am not sure you'd call that a moral person. Also, someone can restrain themselves for reasons having little to do with morality, like that they don't want to get caught or get in trouble. Morality is a far broader discussion than restraint.

 

The right thing in one role is not always the same as the right thing in another role. If you cut your child open in your role as a parent that's probably "wrong". But cutting open someone's child in your role as a surgeon may be "right." Context matters.

[RestoringGuy]

Morality is much broader than just restraint. As many people have pointed out, you can do a horrible thing, but just do a bit less of it, and I am not sure you'd call that a moral person. Also, someone can restrain themselves for reasons having little to do with morality, like that they don't want to get caught or get in trouble. Morality is a far broader discussion than restraint.

 

The right thing in one role is not always the same as the right thing in another role. If you cut your child open in your role as a parent that's probably "wrong". But cutting open someone's child in your role as a surgeon may be "right." Context matters.

Why are roles real?  Maybe they are just mentally constructed words for implied promises a person may or may not keep.  The fiction of roles is why male American babies get their foreskins chopped off, because a surgeon is exceptionally considered right.  To me, moral roles are lies aimed at covering up hatred.

[JSDev]

Morality is much broader than just restraint. As many people have pointed out, you can do a horrible thing, but just do a bit less of it, and I am not sure you'd call that a moral person. Also, someone can restrain themselves for reasons having little to do with morality, like that they don't want to get caught or get in trouble. Morality is a far broader discussion than restraint.

 

The right thing in one role is not always the same as the right thing in another role. If you cut your child open in your role as a parent that's probably "wrong". But cutting open someone's child in your role as a surgeon may be "right." Context matters.

 

What? I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous point to make. Context matters? It's as if you said oranges aren't juicy and and I gave you an example of one that is, but you then say, oh yeah but they're round, shape matters. How is context relevant to an individual choosing to do the right thing or not? (Please don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question). You have an individual parent choosing to do the morally right thing by raising children peacefully and you have individuals in a community choosing to do the morally right thing by having peaceful relationships with their neighbors. You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. All the this talk of  "parents", "government workers", "context", "roles", "restraint", it's all just needless clutter. Philosophy is about getting at the heart of what it is we're really asking. Adding more words and concepts into the mix is getting you further away from truth, not closer. Maybe that's what you want, I don't know, but that's not philosophy.

[STer]

Why are roles real?  Maybe they are just mentally constructed words for implied promises a person may or may not keep.  The fiction of roles is why male American babies get their foreskins chopped off, because a surgeon is exceptionally considered right.  To me, moral roles are lies aimed at covering up hatred.

 

The question of are they "real" is one I don't find relevant. And, frankly, this entire thing where libertarians and anarchists act as if not having physical reality makes something non-existent and irrelevant is something I don't buy into (and which they constantly contradict themselves. For instance, they say "the state" doesn't exist, but then constantly talk about "the state" as an entity).

 

If you require material attributes for every single thing you accept as a concept, then you can simply define the roles by their material attributes.

 

So the parent role = your behavior at the times you are interacting with a child so as to guide and nurture them.

 

Your work role = your behavior at the times you are performing the tasks at your place of employment that fit under your job heading.

 

And so on. Surely you can't say that such differences in the context of your behavior don't materially exist. You are interacting with different people for different purposes, usually even in different places at the times of these behaviors. The "rightness" or "wrongness" of a behavior depends on the situation.

 

You also seem to have misunderstood something about roles. I never said the fact that you can claim to do something within a role makes it right. I simply said determining if it is right or not depends on the role. If you disagree with circumcision, you may say performing that act is wrong in any role. That's not an argument against roles. You still have to evaluate behaviors within the context they take place in. But that doesn't mean the fact you were acting in a role makes it ok.

What? I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous point to make. Context matters? It's as if you said oranges aren't juicy and and I gave you an example of one that is, but you then say, oh yeah but they're round, shape matters. How is context relevant to an individual choosing to do the right thing or not? (Please don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question). You have an individual parent choosing to do the morally right thing by raising children peacefully and you have individuals in a community choosing to do the morally right thing by having peaceful relationships with their neighbors. You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. All the this talk of  "parents", "government workers", "context", "roles", "restraint", it's all just needless clutter. Philosophy is about getting at the heart of what it is we're really asking. Adding more words and concepts into the mix is getting you further away from truth, not closer. Maybe that's what you want, I don't know, but that's not philosophy.

 

You actually asked me how does context matter in determining whether an action is right or wrong and then ignored the example I already gave. I will repeat it:

 

"If you cut your child open in your role as a parent that's probably "wrong". But cutting open someone's child in your role as a surgeon may be "right." Context matters."

 

Do you see how you cannot answer "Is it right to cut open a child?" without knowing more information? It depends on the circumstances. In order to judge the ethics of the situation, you must know "What is the condition of the child? What is the reason for the cutting? What are the qualifications of the person doing the cutting?" Beyond that, you have to know the role of the person at that time. Even someone who is a qualified surgeon may not be "right" in cutting open a child when they are off duty in some cases.

 

Hopefully that explains to you why context matters. If you want to talk more about it, please make sure and reference my example.

[JSDev]

The question of are they "real" is one I don't find relevant. And, frankly, this entire thing where libertarians and anarchists act as if not having physical reality makes something non-existent and irrelevant is something I don't buy into (and which they constantly contradict themselves. For instance, they say "the state" doesn't exist, but then constantly talk about "the state" as an entity).

 

If you require material attributes for every single thing you accept as a concept, then you can simply define the roles by their material attributes.

 

So the parent role = your behavior at the times you are interacting with a child so as to guide and nurture them.

 

Your work role = your behavior at the times you are performing the tasks at your place of employment that fit under your job heading.

 

And so on. Surely you can't say that such differences in the context of your behavior don't materially exist. You are interacting with different people for different purposes, usually even in different places at the times of these behaviors. The "rightness" or "wrongness" of a behavior depends on the situation.

 

You also seem to have misunderstood something about roles. I never said the fact that you can claim to do something within a role makes it right. I simply said determining if it is right or not depends on the role. If you disagree with circumcision, you may say performing that act is wrong in any role. That's not an argument against roles. You still have to evaluate behaviors within the context they take place in. But that doesn't mean the fact you were acting in a role makes it ok.

 

You actually asked me how does context matter in determining whether an action is right or wrong and then ignored the example I already gave. I will repeat it:

 

"If you cut your child open in your role as a parent that's probably "wrong". But cutting open someone's child in your role as a surgeon may be "right." Context matters."

 

Do you see how you cannot answer "Is it right to cut open a child?" without knowing more information? It depends on the circumstances. In order to judge the ethics of the situation, you must know "What is the condition of the child? What is the reason for the cutting? What are the qualifications of the person doing the cutting?" Beyond that, you have to know the role of the person at that time. Even someone who is a qualified surgeon may not be "right" in cutting open a child when they are off duty in some cases.

 

Hopefully that explains to you why context matters. If you want to talk more about it, please make sure and reference my example.

 

I know what context means, you don't have to explain it. It's simply not relevant. Since when was your question about trying to determine whether an action is right or wrong? And please use less words, and if you must use analogies, use one where no cutting is involved.

[RestoringGuy]

The question of are they "real" is one I don't find relevant. And, frankly, this entire thing where libertarians and anarchists act as if not having physical reality makes something non-existent and irrelevant is something I don't buy into (and which they constantly contradict themselves. For instance, they say "the state" doesn't exist, but then constantly talk about "the state" as an entity).

 

If you require material attributes for every single thing you accept as a concept, then you can simply define the roles by their material attributes.

 

So the parent role = your behavior at the times you are interacting with a child so as to guide and nurture them.

 

Your work role = your behavior at the times you are performing the tasks at your place of employment that fit under your job heading.

 

And so on. Surely you can't say that such differences in the context of your behavior don't materially exist. You are interacting with different people for different purposes, usually even in different places at the times of these behaviors. The "rightness" or "wrongness" of a behavior depends on the situation.

I am glad you point that out concerning physical reality.  I do not subscribe to the theory that "real" is equivalent to material presence.  Quite the opposite, I am a Platonist.  On the other hand, there are logical bounds and we can only measure those bounds using materialistic tools. Whether or not roles are viable indicators of morality shows me whether they are real, and if the roles are social fictions I tend to doubt their viability.  I suppose the victim can also decide what the purpose is, maybe better than the person who is in the role. 

 

The point I make is when people talk about roles or the state, they are not talking about context as you describe.  Why do you try to make context determine what is right?  Why can't any context of the same act be "wrong" but at the same time be a contextually necessary wrong?  It is cases like self-defense where people always try to make context magically make violence right.  It seems simpler to leave violence wrong, and when self-defense arises, it is still wrong but necessary to accomplish a goal (survival, etc).  That is were context matters to me, in goals, not morality.  It is maybe only our difference in vocabulary, but my thinking maybe allows fewer sentences with the idea "it's wrong except".   You make good points though.

[STer]

I know what context means, you don't have to explain it. It's simply not relevant. Since when was your question about trying to determine whether an action is right or wrong? And please use less words, and if you must use analogies, use one where no cutting is involved.

 

If you think you know what context means and think it's not relevant to judging whether actions are right or wrong, then I'm not sure you actually know what context means.

 

It was you who asked "Why does the role you play in society have anything to do with you doing the right thing or not?"

 

So I responded to your question by showing how what role you are playing is part of determining if something is right or wrong. Right or wrong is, in many ways, dependent on the role you are playing at the time. Again that isn't to say that some things may not be considered wrong regardless of the role. It's just to say that some things are right in one role and wrong in another.

 

I will use as many words as I need to get my point across, but I'll try to be concise if you are concise. As for analogies, I reserve the right to use whatever analogies I need, but I'll try to use more pleasant ones for you, my friend. haha.

[STer]

I am glad you point that out concerning physical reality.  I do not subscribe to the theory that "real" is equivalent to material presence.  Quite the opposite, I am a Platonist.  On the other hand, there are logical bounds and we can only measure those bounds using materialistic tools. Whether or not roles are viable indicators of morality shows me whether they are real, and if the roles are social fictions I tend to doubt their viability.  I suppose the victim can also decide what the purpose is, maybe better than the person who is in the role. 

 

The point I make is when people talk about roles or the state, they are not talking about context as you describe.  Why do you try to make context determine what is right?  Why can't any context of the same act be "wrong" but at the same time be a contextually necessary wrong?  It is cases like self-defense where people always try to make context magically make violence right.  It seems simpler to leave violence wrong, and when self-defense arises, it is still wrong but necessary to accomplish a goal (survival, etc).  That is were context matters to me, in goals, not morality.  It is maybe only our difference in vocabulary, but my thinking maybe allows fewer sentences with the idea "it's wrong except".   You make good points though.

 

Roles are not social fictions. A "role" is just a name we place on the relationship to others in which someone is while performing an action. It is very much a real thing that they are in different relations to different people at different times.

 

I said what is right must be assessed in relation to the context. In some cases, you can assess something and decide it's wrong in all contexts. But the point is that just because something is wrong in some contexts, you can't automatically assume it is wrong in all.

 

Saying that in self-defense, violence is wrong, but necessary, is just needlessly confusing. It ends up just being an argument about the meaning of 'wrong.' In my view, if something is necessary, then it isn't wrong to do. Even the dictionary has multiple definitions of wrong. We're probably just each focusing on different ones right now. To me, to say something is both necessary to do and wrong to do calls into question what you mean by "necessary" also. It's just pointlessly confusing.

 

Regardless, the point is if something is necessary to do and someone does it, there is no justification to condemn them for it or for them to feel guilt about it. That is what I mean by it not being wrong.

[Mike Fleming]

 

So again, my question in the thread ended up not being about "peaceful parenting vs. peaceful government" but more about if a person can restrain their exercise of power as a parent, can they also restrain their exercise of power as a government worker.

 

Oh so this is what you were trying to get at.  Quite frankly this thread is mostly tldr and I've just skimmed over it for the most part, but since you succinctly asked the question here I'll answer it.

 

Yes, people in both situations can restrain their exercise of power if they choose.  Now can you tell me what point this proves?  Preferably without going into more tldr territory.

[LifeIsBrief]

Just a small point... The state does not exist, because it is simply a collection of individuals that believe insane, violent, nonsense.  The goal of libertarians, is to encourage people to stop believing insane, violent, nonsense.  Once you no longer believe in insane, violent, nonsense, you will no longer be willing to work for the state.  It's really that simple.  No one who chooses to be a peaceful parent, will want anything to do with people who murder people for disagreement, or kidnap people for not paying them.  In essence, you're asking this individual parent to be a square circle.

[Mike Fleming]

I should point out that one is a valid form of power, though temporary until the child is able to look after himself.  The other form of power (government) doesn't have any validity nor did it ever.  The power being exercised becomes violent and aggressive when you don't do what it says because it doesn't have any validity to it.

 

if government workers were always to restrain their use of power then I would be the first to stop paying taxes, car registration, etc.

[STer]

Oh so this is what you were trying to get at.  Quite frankly this thread is mostly tldr and I've just skimmed over it for the most part, but since you succinctly asked the question here I'll answer it.

 

Yes, people in both situations can restrain their exercise of power if they choose.  Now can you tell me what point this proves?  Preferably without going into more tldr territory.

 

The tl;dr in this thread (I agree with you) comes from the fact that after I clarified what I really meant the topic to be in one of my very first few posts, even to the extent of saying I'd prefer to change the title if I could, people - to an almost unbelievable extent - continued to argue straw men. Only two or three people in this entire thread have even bothered to answer the actual question I asked, as you did here (thank you!).

 

What the point proves is that there is a double standard going on. Stefan bases almost his entire hope for the world on encouraging parents to restrain their exercise of power and become more peaceful. But I never hear him encouraging - or even talking as if it's possible - for government workers to restrain their exercise of power. I find it an especially glaring double standard because Stefan repeatedly says "the State doesn't actually exist". He says it is just a bunch of individuals wearing costumes and doing things. Well, if it's just a bunch of individuals, just like parents are just a bunch of individuals, then there is no reason not to treat them similarly and appeal to them to restrain their abuses.

Just a small point... The state does not exist, because it is simply a collection of individuals that believe insane, violent, nonsense.  The goal of libertarians, is to encourage people to stop believing insane, violent, nonsense.  Once you no longer believe in insane, violent, nonsense, you will no longer be willing to work for the state.  It's really that simple.  No one who chooses to be a peaceful parent, will want anything to do with people who murder people for disagreement, or kidnap people for not paying them.  In essence, you're asking this individual parent to be a square circle.

 

>The state does not exist, 

>Once you no longer believe in insane, violent, nonsense, you will no longer be willing to work for the state.

 

How is it possible that working for the state is an option you can be unwilling to take if the state does not exist?

I should point out that one is a valid form of power, though temporary until the child is able to look after himself.  The other form of power (government) doesn't have any validity nor did it ever.  The power being exercised becomes violent and aggressive when you don't do what it says because it doesn't have any validity to it.

 

if government workers were always to restrain their use of power then I would be the first to stop paying taxes, car registration, etc.

 

I guess you really did only skim the thread. Probably half of the tl;dr referred to was from people doing exactly what you just did

 

I can't even count how many times people argued about the legitimacy of parental power vs. legitimacy of government power and how many times I explicitly said I'm not raising that issue. And then, after complaining about the tldr-ness, you did the same thing. I don't blame you because I understand you couldn't stomach reading the whole thread. But sort of amusing.

 

Not having read the thread very closely, you also probably missed the discussion that there are other options for raising children than one or two-parent isolated nuclear family households, which probably allow a lot more abuses to take place than some other social structures might. Concentration of power over children can be dangerous just like concentration of power over society?

[LifeIsBrief]

>The state does not exist, 

>Once you no longer believe in insane, violent, nonsense, you will no longer be willing to work for the state.

 

How is it possible that working for the state is an option you can be unwilling to take if the state does not exist?

 

Well first... I just want to point out that you cut off the first sentence.  "The state does not exist, because it is simply a collection of individuals that believe insane, violent, nonsense."

 

It's a concept, not a thing.... Like Christianity.  Christianity does not exist. There are 100 different types, that believe directly contradictory things.  Can you touch the state? See it? Smell it? Define it? Or is it just lines someone randomly scrawled on a map before you were born?  What you can touch, is people who choose to steal your money, for that belief.  Just as the Inquisition, could touch you, but Christianity, can't. 

 

Libertarians, for the most part, know that the concept of "the state" is fatally flawed, and that once people stop believing in it, it will disappear.  The same is not true of things that actually exist.  If everyone chooses not to believe in dogs, they don't simply disappear.  It's ephemeral.  The state is Tinker Bell, and we want you to stop clapping

[RestoringGuy]

Roles are not social fictions. A "role" is just a name we place on the relationship to others in which someone is while performing an action. It is very much a real thing that they are in different relations to different people at different times.

 

I said what is right must be assessed in relation to the context. In some cases, you can assess something and decide it's wrong in all contexts. But the point is that just because something is wrong in some contexts, you can't automatically assume it is wrong in all.

 

Saying that in self-defense, violence is wrong, but necessary, is just needlessly confusing. It ends up just being an argument about the meaning of 'wrong.' In my view, if something is necessary, then it isn't wrong to do. Even the dictionary has multiple definitions of wrong. We're probably just each focusing on different ones right now. To me, to say something is both necessary to do and wrong to do calls into question what you mean by "necessary" also. It's just pointlessly confusing.

 

Regardless, the point is if something is necessary to do and someone does it, there is no justification to condemn them for it or for them to feel guilt about it. That is what I mean by it not being wrong.

I am shocked.  You say a role is not a fiction, but it is a name?  I will insist that names are fictional.  We are not born with names tattooed.  If anything is fictional, is not a name fictional that is strictly conjured in our minds?  And there is certainly no such thing as a "name we place" on things because we jointly share no speaking or writing organs.  The name you place differs from the name I place, as proven by our differing use of words.  The Sears Tower is still named by me "Sears Tower", I do not care what the new owner says.  There is certainly cause for somebody to feel guilt about committing a necessary wrong.  To me it is far less confusing than making wrong a context-based word.  If I kill in self-defense, I will regret killing and feel guilt.  I will only take slight comfort in the necessity, not the morality.  Your system of naming seems to exonorate people who seek out conflict (or at least do not try to avoid) until they must act out in violence, and you seem to call it right.  I am comfortable blaming but not punishing people who do wrongful things out of necessity.  But you seem to be saying there is no such thing as necessary evil.

[JSDev]

If you think you know what context means and think it's not relevant to judging whether actions are right or wrong, then I'm not sure you actually know what context means.

Context is irrelevant because judging whether actions are right or wrong is irrelevant to your main question! You're obviously just playing games now.