Have We Forgotten the Old Lessons Regarding Violence?
by Wilton D. Alston
by
Wilton D. Alston
DIGG THIS
"Society
is joint action and cooperation in which each participant sees
the other partner’s success as a means for the attainment of his
own. Social cooperation has nothing to do with personal love or
a general commandment to love one another. People do not cooperate
because they love or should love one another. They cooperate because
this best serves their own interest.
The advantages
derived from peaceful cooperation and the division of labor are
universal. They immediately benefit every generation, and not
only later descendants. For what the individual must sacrifice
for the sake of society he is amply compensated by greater advantages.
His sacrifice is only apparent and temporary; he foregoes a smaller
gain in order to reap a greater one later."
~
Ludwig von Mises
I saw a very
interesting op-ed
piece in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution just the other
day. It was written by former congressman Bob Barr and was entitled,
"Seeking quality of life at the point of a gun?" The article
struck my fancy for several reasons. First of all, as anyone who
has read a good cross section of my pieces can attest, I have a
special interest in violence, specifically state-sponsored violence,
and how it affects the individual, and with him, society. I believe,
wholeheartedly, that the "way to peace," if it (the way)
exists, is via self-government, as counter-intuitive-to-mainstream-thought
as that premise may seem. I’m on
record with Robert
Higgs in stating that an anarchic society will generally and
necessarily be more peaceful than a statist one, ceteris
paribus. That there exist ostensive libertarians who might debate
this point is to be expected; however, the undergirding logic remains
convincing.
But let’s forget
all that stuff. Let us not be bogged down by theory and logic and
other academic whatnottery. Let us instead reason this thing through
with common sense alone, aided by just a modicum of observation.
Certainly there must be obvious, repeatable, and universal justifications
for the spread of policies like "zero tolerance" throughout
the US schools, right? There must also be ample objective evidence,
easily called upon and shared, that suggests that harshly punishing
minor offenses leads inexorably to fewer instances of more egregious
ones.
The popularity
of policies supported (or popularized?) by people like Rudy "Jailiani"
would seem to indicate that such data exists. I suspect that more
than a few conservatives would argue that harshly penalizing bums
in Manhattan leads inexorably to fewer rapes. Still, I’m left with
a rather obvious question: Where the heck is it?
It does not
exist. According to a report from the Indiana Education Policy Center,
"Zero Tolerance,
Zero Evidence," not only are zero
tolerance policies in schools ineffective in reducing alcohol
abuse or other problems, such aggressive policies result in a number
of negative outcomes for both schools and students.
Similar conclusions
can be drawn regarding zero tolerance in society at large. The recidivism
rate of people initially jailed for non-violent offenses, which
can be as
high as 70% within three years of release from prison, speaks
volumes here. If a person who is convicted of a non-violent offense
such as drug possession ends up back in prison 7 out of 10 times,
I’d say putting them in jail isn’t working, unless it works for
someone other than the inmate. (That’s likely another essay!)
Before we spend
just a few minutes examining the general folly of zero tolerance,
let us make sure we’re not overreacting. Former congressman Barr
could be mistaken right? If only. Examples of knee-jerk pseudo-totalitarian
behavior abound. Here’s a brief, and far-from-exhaustive smattering:
Is There
Any Successful Analogue for Zero Tolerance?
No, there isn’t.
It may live in the fertile minds of the "law givers" mentioned
in the links above, but it doesn’t exist in real life. Former congressman
Barr lays this fallacy bare, but maybe a few questions are still
in order. Before we examine human behavior from a common-sense point
of view with regard to humans, let’s start with animals.
Most people
I know have owned a pet. Many of them have been dogs. If you punish
your dog harshly for something simple, does it make him less likely
to do something worse? If you punish the animal more and more, does
he get better and better? With apologies to partially appealing
to the No True Scotsman fallacy, is there anyone who thinks that
harshly punishing a pet results in demonstrably better behavior?
(Yes, I know Homo sapiens are generally more psychologically
complicated than canines, but humor me, okay?) In fact, is it not
true that the more harshly you punish an animal, the more likely
that animal is to react in a less-than-positive way? Not to put
too fine a point on this thing, but didn’t Mike Vick go to jail
for treating his dogs poorly? I’m certainly no dog-fighting expert,
but I suspect that getting a dog to fight to the death involves
a higher measure of pain than comfort. I don’t see a lot of nurturing
being involved.
So, what about
children? Is there any parent – any sane parent – who figures
that whipping a child severely with leather straps for not washing
the dishes results in an adult who welcomes the challenges of a
job well done? I certainly hope not. While we could very likely
investigate the output of psychological journals to obtain data,
I posit that such a study is not necessary. The argument from
effect is simply not needed here. This is about morality and
the argument from morality informs this discussion completely.
There is no scenario under which authority trumps morality.
If we want
a society wherein universally
preferable behavior – behavior based upon ironclad universality
and complete consistency – is the rule and not the exception, we
must model such treatment for those who are using our example to
inform their future choices. We must treat others as we ourselves
would like to be treated, not treat them as harshly as our authority
allows. Violence begets violence. It always has. It always will.
The zero tolerance
we impose upon a child today becomes the lack of remorse in a terrorist
or serial killer tomorrow. Putting people in jail for infractions
barely worthy of mention does not result in enhanced safety; it
results in increased fear and decreased compassion. Responses to
fear are seldom positive. Lack of compassion seldom leads to increased
morality.
Conclusion
Others have
illustrated the virulence of the
pending police state, where people like Jonas Phillips
can be arrested for displaying a pro-impeachment sign. I just hoped
– in vain I guess – that we would not let the power-mad desires
of a few convince us that we must also punish our youth with swift,
harsh, and decisive action regardless of supposed offense. At what
point do we realize that you don’t get better quality of life by
kicking more rear ends more quickly?
For
better or worse, people’s future behavior is often shaped by that
which is deemed appropriate by those in authority over them. This
is the awesome challenge faced by every parent. At the risk of repeating
myself, allow me instead to repeat myself repeating someone else!
In a previous
essay I quoted one of my fellow posters on Stefan Molyneux’s
Freedomain Radio
Discussion Board, a poster known to me only as "John."
His words are still some of the very best I’ve ever heard
on this issue.
"A
society ignorant of the fact that violence is only capable of
generating evil will accept the expansion of violence as the ‘logical’
remedy for the failure of violence."
How many serial
killers, at worst, or mindless robots, at best, will we create –
not only in our schools but also abroad – before more people understand
this powerful truth?
October
25, 2007
Wilt
Alston [send him
mail] lives in Rochester, NY, with his wife and three
children. When he’s not training for a marathon or furthering his
part-time study of libertarian philosophy, he works as a principal
research scientist in transportation safety, focusing primarily
on the safety of subway and freight train control systems.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Wilton
D. Alston Archives
|