Use of Force--One Thing Not Up to the Individual
Posted by CMBurton 1 year, 9 months ago to Philosophy
The use of physical force — even its retaliatory use — cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice — the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.
Visualize, for example, what would happen if a man missed his wallet, concluded that he had been robbed, broke into every house in the neighborhood to search it, and shot the first man who gave him a dirty look, taking the look to be a proof of guilt.
The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas.
If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.
This is the task of a government — of a proper government — its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.
A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control — i.e., under objectively defined laws.
“THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 108
Visualize, for example, what would happen if a man missed his wallet, concluded that he had been robbed, broke into every house in the neighborhood to search it, and shot the first man who gave him a dirty look, taking the look to be a proof of guilt.
The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas.
If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.
This is the task of a government — of a proper government — its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.
A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control — i.e., under objectively defined laws.
“THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 108
defense; he cannot convene a jury and put his attacker on trial right there and then, on the street. But taking the law into his own hands, and going after the criminal himself, after the fact, is a different thing; for instance, if he goes to his store and finds it has been cleaned out overnight.
Elisjsha Dicken Or Bernhard Goetz?
If someone initiates violence against me I will escalate or calm a situation down to the point that I am no longer threatened.
Eliminating a threat does not necessarily need to result in death.
When I was teaching school, we had to deal with belligerent parents sometimes. One technique to de-escalate a confrontation is to reflect the person’s body language or tone of voice initially, the gradually make your body language or tone less and less aggressive. Normally, a person will get calmer and quieter as you do.
I think I have a mild case of PTSD from, among other things, working with the public in positions that were often confrontational but where the burden was on me to try to keep the situation under control and non-violent. In my current position we have recently had to formulate a plan for dealing with the possibility of an active shooter situation. We’ve had training on how to go back and forth to the office, car, etc. while watching for threats. I’ve never worked in a combat situation, but I am regularly reminded that I could easily be killed just because I did my job and made someone mad.
I’ve really thought of getting off here completely to avoid the casual use of violent figures of speech, but there are aspects of discussion on here that I enjoy.
I hope you understand. I’m not trying to be a jerk.
You have obviously heard the warnings of suicidal behavior on TV for these types of drugs.
BTW my research on the amitriptyline correlation and suicide , showed that only one other drug
Was more prevalent in the poor souls ,that was alcohol. Amitriptyline was second most common..