Now at some risk of provoking an adverse response, I am going to have to raise a point regarding what is and is not a reasonable view regarding violence.
Although we have written many articles about the subject on Samizdata, I am not talking about self defence this time, which to most libertarians is a ‘no brainer’… if you are threatened with violence, you may defend yourself. Nor was I talking about the legitimacy of war against Iraq, which though more contentious is, I think, also a legitimate use of violence.
No, I am discussing the use of violence in everyday life. Now this is still a subject many have written about on this blog, usually with regard to violence and coercion directed at children as one of our contributors is the redoubtable Sarah Lawrence of Taking Children Seriously fame, and two of our frequent guest writers are supporters of TCS.
But I am not really talking about whether or not a child should be hit by their parents specifically but rather whether it is ever justified to use force outside the context of self-defense. When discussing the use of coercion against children, I was once asked if I would ever use force against an adult just because I disapproved of their behaviour in non-self defense situations. My answer was that whilst I would agree that as a general principle I am indeed against the use of force, there are indeed situations in the real world in which violence in the only way to communicate meaningfully.
About 18 months ago, I was crossing a street in Battersea with my 81 year old grandmother. A driver recklessly rounded a corner and only just managed to slam on the brakes in time to avoid running my grandmother down. Far from apologising for his reckless driving and the fact he nearly killed her, he blew his horn and abused her.
There were no witnesses to hand, meaning a formal complaint would just be our word against his, and as he was clearly about to drive off, I was faced with either doing nothing or expressing my displeasure forcefully. I reached in the open window, dragged him out of his car by his collar and punched him in the face. Although we did not discourse at great length, I can say with some confidence that I am sure he understood the causal links which had lead to his face and my fist coming into close proximity.
Do I recommend this as method of communication? Generally no, but the choice I had was simply to allow him to drive away after having nearly killed my grandmother or use force to demonstrate that such behaviour in entirely unacceptable. If there had been witnesses to hand I suspect I would have noted his licence plate and called the police but that was not so… I chose to react forcefully and would do so again in similar circumstances. It may not have been the legal thing to do but I would contend it was the correct thing to do.
The point I am trying to make is that in the real world, sometimes people act entirely unreasonably and thus to try and reason with them is unlikely to achieve much more or less by definition: they are unreasonable. 99 times out of 100 violence is not the answer. On that 100th time however, some level of violence is the only meaningful reaction. The world is a messy place.
This shows that despite beeing a libertarian you are quite normal.
Would you still have punched him if there *had* been any witnesses?
Good for you, by the way.
These discussions are always interesting to me because I approach libertarianism from a more utilitarian perspective, rather than the non-initiation of force principle. So in my mind, you’re justified if you’re sure that you are using a little force now to prevent more dangerous activities later.
I never fail to be fascinated by liberals who believe that–even though they can’t quite think of one–there is always a non-violent solution to every problem. An easy opinion to have from your enclave of safety in Berkeley, filled with police and surrounded by the U.S. military.
However, the world is indeed a messy place, as I wrote about here.
In the words of Robert A Heinlein: “An armed society is a polite society.”
Some adults definitely need a slap to teach them correct behaviour. And getting a slap is not necessarily a bad thing either – quick to receive and quick to be over with; learn and move on. Or don’t learn, and still move on, but don’t be surprised to get slapped again.
And doesn’t it fit in with basic libertarian principles, i.e. with the driver being forced to accept the consequences of his freely chosen actions?
Taking it a step further, Peter Cuthbertson wrote a very good article (IMO) – Duelling: a libertarian argument for legalisation.
I’ve been intrigued by the subject of duelling ever since I read Gene Wolfe’s “Book of the New Sun” series; I don’t have the book to hand, but he wrote something on the lines of: Without duelling, when one person decides to kill another it’s the most sly and untrustworthy who wins, and because Society punishes the murderer Society is thereby deprived of two individuals; with duelling, it’s the fittest, the skilled and honourable who survives, and Society is only deprived of the loser.
There’s an informative article on the history, rules and practice of duelling in the Anglosphere at the Outlaws Legal Service, including the Code Duello and, interestingly, a modern ‘Demand for Trial by Combat and Affidavit of Fact’.
What you have done is still self-defence: You are protecting yourself against possible future attacks on you (or your grandmother’s) person by the crazed driver, by showing him there are consequences for his actions.
If your action is not self-defence, then it’s rather hard to justify prisons in a libertarian society; after all, how is what you did morally different from a cop coming up to him, arresting him and the courts putting him in jail for his actions?
Sasha: I think it was the prospect of the SOB just driving off and that being the end of it that caused me to do what I did. I think I would have just filed a complaint if there had been witnesses… but to be honest I am not sure. I was pretty damn angry.
This may shock some people, but I don’t think Perry did anything seriously wrong here. I probably wouldn’t have punched the guy, but I’m not generally the punching type. This was essentially punishing him for a crime of which he was plainly guilty (reckless endangerment), and for which there was no other way to punish him. I know I’ve certainly wanted to injure people who have almost run me down due to speeding / not looking where they were going, etc.
I doubt it would change the guy’s behavior, but I’m sure it was psychologically satisfying to Perry (and possibly his grandmother). Most importantly, no one was mamed.
On the other hand: “I never fail to be fascinated by liberals who believe that–even though they can’t quite think of one–there is always a non-violent solution to every problem. An easy opinion to have from your enclave of safety in Berkeley, filled with police and surrounded by the U.S. military.”
Agreed, it is easy to think this there (or in my case Normal, IL). I’m not a “liberal” as the term is commonly used, but I am a pacifist who lives in extreme safety (aside from a police shooting rate that about equals the murder rate). However, there have been people all over the world who chose nonviolence in the face of great temptation of violence (Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, etc.)
A future example might be in Palestine. To the Palestinians, violence must seem like the the only possibility for the defeat of the Israelis. The thing is that nonviolence has never been tried. Violent resistance against the Israelis will never work. The Israelis are too strong, and every civilian terrorists kill makes them even madder.
The solution for this hopeless situation is to change strategies and resist the Israelis without harming them. The Palestinians could turn Israel into a friend if they would stop attacking them, and killing innocent civilians. This serves no goal other than the prolonging of war.
I don’t know if nonviolence is the solution to every problem. I think it is probably the solution to the vast majority of problems in international relations, but it is almost never seriously attempted. Everyone says that violence is the last resort, but it is usually the second attempt to solve a problem, and the only whole-hearted attempt. In any case, nonviolence is the only moral solution to any problem in the international regime. Immorality is sometimes (much less frequently than is usually claimed) unavoidable, but it is always bad. In the case of war, it causes unimaginable suffering.
I remember an interview with the Dalai Lama, where the interviewer was amazed that he could advocate nonviolence in Tibet. The interviewer mentioned his own frustration even with things as trivial as traffic jams, and he responded with something like “if the car is delayed then I am annoyed as well, but I think on matters of such importance, more patience is required.”
“I doubt it would change the guy’s behavior”
I’d bet that the driver was meek as a lamb for a few days at least. Perry might prove me wrong – after Perry was finished with the driver did he return to his car and burn rubber?
I can imagine the driver (assuming he wasn’t behaving out of character when he met with Perry) returning to form after a week or so – not witnessing anyone else being similarly negatively rewarded, he would realise correctly that his finding consequences to his actions was an aberration and unlikely to be repeated.
“who chose nonviolence in the face of great temptation of violence (Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, etc.)”
Was violence really a ‘great temptation’ to Gandhi? He got a close-up view of how Britain dealt with terrorists when living in Natal during the Boer War (and credit where credit’s due, he raised an ambulance corps of 1,100 volunteers for service in the war). If he had become a guerrilla the odds are high that he’d have been hanged or shot. Pacifism was the safe option for him, and would not have worked with anyone less moral than the Brits.
As for Mandela, during the Rivonia sabotage trial he admitted that he had planned sabotage, and said:
Kinda gave in to that ‘great temptation of violence’, huh? He preached non-violence after his release from Robben Island though – see, prison does work. Although now he’s jaunting around the world begging pity for the Lockerbie bomber having no-one to talk to, calling the US a threat to ‘world peace’ and denouncing ‘white’ Israel while his own country descends into the same hell as Zimbabwe.
“non violence in Tibet” – yup, there’s a good example of how successful non-violent resistance is. The Chinese really regret their 1950 invasion now, huh? No Chinese in Tibet now, nosiree.
A marked contrast to the Afghans who chose violence to resist the Russian invasion of 1979. Will the Soviets ever leave Kabul? I henceforth refuse to eat anymore Russian apples until they do. Sign the petition. Divest now!
“‘if the car is delayed […] more patience is required.'”
Sure is, particularly if the other driver is likely to arrest, torture and then execute you. Or even just drag you out of your car and smack you in the face. Getting het up in a traffic jam isn’t worth dying for.
Freedom is. For some people anyway. And because some people found freedom a cause worth fighting and dying for, we have a United States of America, and not an overseas dependency of the British Empire; we have a United Kingdom which for all its faults is at least not a vassal state of a Nazi empire.
Good for you! He got what he deserved
I’d like you to see you come and try that with me – mano de mano you !@$#ing %$#@! bag.
ha ha ha h….. already weak laughter gets weaker and dies.
Okaaaaaaaaaay.
In America we call what you went through a shooting incident.
And [SASSY ism alert – Society for American Sardonic and Stupid Yankisms] as Americans have all the war technology I would have gone for the smart weapons before thinking through clearly what I was doing. I would have assured my
grandmother that what I was doing was in the best interest of not only her but all 81-year-old grandmothers and then thrown stones/rocks.