This is not the first time I've heard this argument, and I still don't get it. Violence is defined as; "marked by the use of usually harmful or destructive physical force" according to the Merriam...
Every law is violent. We try not to think about this, but we should. On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill. They are suitably astonished, and often annoyed. But I point out that even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him.
This is not the first time I've heard this argument, and I still don't get it. Violence is defined as; "marked by the use of usually harmful or destructive physical force" according to the Merriam Webster dictionary. Laws do not automatically result in this; if you choose to resist a law or contract you have personally agreed to do, you're the one being violent in this case, not the law, as your victim has almost certainly not consented to you resisting. This sounds confusingly written, so allow me an analogy; let's say we pass a law prohibiting parking on a certain curb. As a citizen of your city, you have given your implicit consent to follow and agree to this law; if not, you have plenty of opportunities in a democratic system to work against it, or to move elsewhere where this law doesn't apply. By willingly staying inside an area of jurisdiction even though you have an option to leave, you're implicitly consenting to all of the laws that are formerly passed there.
So back to our example. Even though it's illegal to park here, the author does so anyway. As the author has now violated a law that he agreed to follow, IE a breach of contract, the party that has been wronged (in this case the state) is allowed a redress as per the contract (the law). In this case, they're allowed to issue you a parking ticket. Now, again, the author has a choice; he can either obey and pay the fine, or he resists. if he resists, now he's breaking another agreement with the state, perhaps something like disorderly conduct, or maybe even resisting arrest. Now, these are agreements that far greater penalties then the parking law, so by intentionally and willfully refusing to honor these ones, he's inviting the same mechanism as before; the state is allowed under the law to impose a punishment, in this case a harsher one, because of the author's refusal to obey. The author is the one who escalated it in both instances, and even though was offered a peaceful way out twice (pay the fine or willingly comply with the arrest), the author chose to refuse. Actions and choices have consequences, especially when you've agreed to them ahead of time, and refusing to honor your own agreements with force that could cause injury to a government agent is indeed violent behavior.
Are any readers persuaded by the notion that some laws they would otherwise support are better repealed, or never passed, because the benefits do not justify the violence that is likely to be triggered, sooner or later, by attempts at enforcement?
No, not me personally. The best example I can think of in American history is the civil war, which was fundamentally over this very question. Living in a society / country means just that; there are obligations on both parties. In exchange for certain guarantees and protections from the state, you have certain civic obligations or duties; and following / obeying laws is one of them. In certain very delicate situations, it's possibly advisable to delay passing a law if you fear a violent retaliation, but if you are going to violently resist the government asserting its legal authority, then your option should be to move somewhere else. There are plenty of locations where de-facto law doesn't exist, and plenty more where the law is significantly relaxed.
at least less then the US or another comparable western country.
If you really want to live with truly no law laws, then I think renouncing your citizenship and living in a ship is the only way to accomplish this. Even then, whenever you step on land, you'll need to be willing to accept at least some authority.
Are any readers persuaded by the notion that some laws they would otherwise support are better repealed, or never passed, because the benefits do not justify the violence that is likely to be triggered, sooner or later, by attempts at enforcement?
This is not the first time I've heard this argument, and I still don't get it. Violence is defined as; "marked by the use of usually harmful or destructive physical force" according to the Merriam Webster dictionary. Laws do not automatically result in this; if you choose to resist a law or contract you have personally agreed to do, you're the one being violent in this case, not the law, as your victim has almost certainly not consented to you resisting. This sounds confusingly written, so allow me an analogy; let's say we pass a law prohibiting parking on a certain curb. As a citizen of your city, you have given your implicit consent to follow and agree to this law; if not, you have plenty of opportunities in a democratic system to work against it, or to move elsewhere where this law doesn't apply. By willingly staying inside an area of jurisdiction even though you have an option to leave, you're implicitly consenting to all of the laws that are formerly passed there.
So back to our example. Even though it's illegal to park here, the author does so anyway. As the author has now violated a law that he agreed to follow, IE a breach of contract, the party that has been wronged (in this case the state) is allowed a redress as per the contract (the law). In this case, they're allowed to issue you a parking ticket. Now, again, the author has a choice; he can either obey and pay the fine, or he resists. if he resists, now he's breaking another agreement with the state, perhaps something like disorderly conduct, or maybe even resisting arrest. Now, these are agreements that far greater penalties then the parking law, so by intentionally and willfully refusing to honor these ones, he's inviting the same mechanism as before; the state is allowed under the law to impose a punishment, in this case a harsher one, because of the author's refusal to obey. The author is the one who escalated it in both instances, and even though was offered a peaceful way out twice (pay the fine or willingly comply with the arrest), the author chose to refuse. Actions and choices have consequences, especially when you've agreed to them ahead of time, and refusing to honor your own agreements with force that could cause injury to a government agent is indeed violent behavior.
No, not me personally. The best example I can think of in American history is the civil war, which was fundamentally over this very question. Living in a society / country means just that; there are obligations on both parties. In exchange for certain guarantees and protections from the state, you have certain civic obligations or duties; and following / obeying laws is one of them. In certain very delicate situations, it's possibly advisable to delay passing a law if you fear a violent retaliation, but if you are going to violently resist the government asserting its legal authority, then your option should be to move somewhere else. There are plenty of locations where de-facto law doesn't exist, and plenty more where the law is significantly relaxed.
at least less then the US or another comparable western country.
If you really want to live with truly no law laws, then I think renouncing your citizenship and living in a ship is the only way to accomplish this. Even then, whenever you step on land, you'll need to be willing to accept at least some authority.