ON THE CAUSE OF VIOLENCE

© Chippy's Dad

"The practical reason for freedom is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fiber can be developed—we have tried law, compulsion and authoritarianism of various kinds, and the result is nothing to be proud of." – Albert Jay Nock.

The discussions on gun control have been extensive over the last few months. New legislation has been enacted, studies have been commissioned, and many theories have been proposed to explain the “increase” in gun violence. On March 22, 2013 an article by JoNel Aleccia of NBC News stated that the Seattle City Council may commission a study concerning the causes and effects of gun violence. The project will analyze public data in order to examine the relationship of substance abuse, mental illness, gun ownership, hospital injury admissions, and deaths. Other musings frequently heard suggest violent movies and video games as causes. Herein, another cause for all violence including gun violence is proposed: one which is conspicuously absent from the public discussion and which I have not heard or read in any other venue. The real reason for the increase in gun violence is that most people, indeed almost all people, are convinced that violence can effectively solve problems.

According to the article, “The hope [of the Seattle study] would be to use the information to target high-risk patients and their families, and then offer interventions that might prevent future gun harm.” However, this study does not ask the right question. In the words of Dave Workman, a senior editor at Gun Week magazine, “What you're talking about is a clever way to make a study with a pre-conceived conclusion that will say guns are bad.” Discussing in necessarily brief passages the five suggested causes in the same order as listed above, each at best appears to be a secondary cause or a symptom of the nearly ubiquitous conviction that violence can effectively solve problems.

Substance Abuse

Substance abuse is often cited as a cause of gun violence. Drug abuse and its support with trade are prohibited. As a prohibited activity, enforcement of agreements cannot be taken to court. Because of the lack of a legal framework for conflicts, the contending parties have no choice but to resort to violence. It is not the substance abuse itself that leads to violence. A lot of prohibited drugs deaden the energy of the user so that violence is relatively less likely. Rather it is the prohibition that leads to violence.

Some substances, such as alcoholic beverages are said to increase violence. These substances do so by reducing inhibitions, but not all people become violent. If a person already has a predilection towards violence, reducing inhibitions tends to increase realized violence. So, even in the case of violence encouraging substances, the conviction that violence can effectively solve problems plays a major part.

Mental Illness

Mental illness sometimes gets the rap for gun violence. There have been several recent documented cases wherein a person with mental illness used guns in violence, but association is not the same as causation. The question must be asked, why would a mentally ill person use a gun for violence, or why would this person resort to violence at all? Could it be that people around the mentally ill person model the use of violence to solve problems? When the mentally ill see the apparent power of gun wielding people, especially authorities, who believe in their hearts that they can effectively solve problems with gun violence, it is natural to jump to the conclusion that they too can solve their own problems with gun violence. Violence appeals to a few of the mentally ill as an easy, shocking, and effective way to solve problems. In this they are merely acting out according to the models that surround them.

Gun Ownership

Guns are tools pure and simple. It is people who become violent for whatever reason. During other times and places, and even in this time and place, other tools are used violently. Not so long ago, there was an incident in a small mountain town in Colorado where a person used a bulldozer to demolish many buildings. Gun ownership is not required to commit violent acts (though in this case after the damage had been done, a gun was used to commit suicide).

As I was writing this piece, an incident in Texas occurred. A student with something like a utility knife ran through the school slitting the throats of over a dozen other students. Guns are not necessary to create great havoc. All that is required to hurt a lot of people is the conviction that violence can effectively solve problems and the resolve to act on that conviction.

It is worth asking whether any identifiable groups of armed people are highly associated with gun violence. Indeed there are at least a couple of such groups. These groups have much in common. They both face a variety of difficult problems. They both must deal with people. Most importantly, both armed robbers and policemen frequently resort to gun violence to “solve” problems. Why do they do it? They do it because they are convinced that gun violence can effectively solve problems.

The glaring difference between armed robbers and policemen is the level of acceptance by other people. When an armed robber uses gun violence, very few people approve. Almost all people will understand that the armed robber is violating the very foundation of civilized society. When a policemen uses gun violence, most people approve. The armed robber tends to not set a precedent or provide a model for acceptable behavior. The police, on-the-other-hand, do tend to provide a model for acceptable behavior. Lots of people view the police as upholding the foundations of society. Therefore, between these two groups, it is most important for the police to avoid the use of violence. By-the-way, this is the main reason why the average policeman patrolling in public should be unarmed.

Violent Movies and Video Games

A common theory for the causes of gun violence is that movies and video games depicting violence inspire violence among impressionable youth. Maybe so. The real question is why do movies and video games often depict violence? They are forms of art that reflect back to the culture what people believe. As with most art, movies and video games depict the culture in graphic detail. Violent movies and video games are popular because so many people are convinced that violence, especially gun violence, can effectively solve problems. Without such widespread conviction, there would be no market for them and they would be rare.

The Underlying Cause of Violence That No One is Discussing

The preceding topics are only briefly discussed; more information on those topics can be found elsewhere. The purpose of this article is to present the underlying reason why violence occurs so frequently.

The conviction that violence can effectively solve problems is most prevalent among leaders in government. Most people seem to believe in each of the following prohibitions and controls. If immigrants are perceived to take away jobs, we only need to take action to control people who cross the border. If movies appear to cause violence, we only need regulate the content of movies. If drug cartels are violent, we only need to control the drug trade. If raw milk can make people sick, we only need to enact a prohibition. If a gunman might shoot other people, we only need to ban, license, or regulate guns. The extent of such controls, regulations, and prohibitions has become so ubiquitous that little is left for personal freedom to act. And yet, new controls, regulations, and prohibitions are enacted frequently and proposed daily. Just the other day, I saw a proposal to establish an offenders list for animal abusers (Is not animal abuse already illegal, just asking the question?).

Implementation of any of these controls, regulations, and prohibitions, along with thousands of other prohibitions and controls, requires enforcement. Enforcement is nothing other than the application of force on people. Typically, this force consists of the use of batons to beat people, pepper spray to temporarily disable people, guns to injure or kill people, and cages to isolate people. Hardly a day goes by wherein the news as seen on television, read in newspapers and books, or posted on the internet does not present a plethora of graphically violent beatings, sprayings, and shootings.

Conclusion

The frequency of violence stems from the culture of violence. Any time someone advocates new legislation, any time an armed policeman stops a non-violent “offender”, or anytime a child in school is exposed to a policy of “zero tolerance”, violence becomes yet more ingrained in the culture. Guns are not the problem; neither are knives nor bulldozers. Those objects are tools. Violence stems from the conviction that violence can effectively solve problems. If you want a less violent culture with fewer mass shootings, or stabbings, then start by renouncing your conviction that the violence required to enforce more legislation can effectively solve problems. The most important type of violence to eschew is the violence of advocating for more governmental controls, for this violence specifically tends to establish a model of behavior for others. Personally renounce violence: all violence.

ON INDIGENCE

ON INDIGENCE
©Chippy's Dad

One time while discussing medical care, I was asked: "Don't you think it is best if all people and not just sick people pay the costs of indigent care?" As part of my answer I said, "While I cannot prove it, I believe that through the elimination of moral hazard there would be far fewer indigents if everyone knew they were on their own." The response was that "I would find it interesting to hear your ideas as to the common causes, environments and education that lead to indigence."

Before I start I will say that, except as described below, education has nothing to do with it. Also, despite the conversation below, I suspect that in rare cases, indigence may result from bad luck such as coming down with a debilitating illness or being seriously injured. However, if bad luck, not fear, is the sole cause of indigence and nothing that follows applies, then the indigent will probably have insurance and will certainly have loved ones who care for him. Following is my response.

The short answer is included in the exchange described above. The moral hazard provides a systemic account for indigence. The conviction that someone will take care of me leads to a tendency to become indigent.

It is not that simple because, as children, almost all of us are convinced that our parents will take care of us. As a person matures, the realization sets in that this idyllic situation will not last. Most people learn to take care of themselves and go on to raise children of their own. So, perhaps indigence results from poor parenting. If the parents continue to fret about the child with great ado through adolescence and early adulthood, he remains dependent. That is, he becomes indigent. Yet, most children become rebellious towards fussy parents. As he matures, why would a child remain dependent after leaving the nest and become indigent when most do not.

What if indigence does not simply follow from a conviction of dependency? I think the indigent lives in fear. Yes, it can be parents who instill a sense of fear even as they fuss, but the key element is the experience of violence such that the indigent feels no control. If the parents inflict arbitrary or unpredictable rewards and punishments on the child, she may become convinced that not only the home but the entire world is chaotic and that all she can do is sit there and take it as it comes. Even if no reward or punishment is intended, but the child perceives the actions of her parents as such, then the world will appear chaotic. She may experience a certain comfort in keeping an extreme low profile in order to not attract attention. When out in the world, a low profile this extreme is indigence.

Notice then, that indigence does not necessarily involve poor parenting. For example, an experience with slavery can produce the same effect. A person, who is a slave, is a person who experiences violence daily yet is perpetually fed, cultivated, and tended. A slave is totally dependent and has no control: dependent for food, housing, direction, training, everything. A slave experiences the extreme fear that at any time, the master may announce that he will be sold and separated from everyone he loves. After slavery, he might live in fear since he was always dependent on the master for direction as to what to do and how to live. When turned out to face the world on his own, the former slave may freeze in the headlights out of fear. Because he is frozen in fear, he would not be free. He thus becomes indigent or tends towards indigence. This feeling of no control and chaos can be passed on through generations. The fear passed through generations can manifest itself in a poor education, a low paying job, violence in the home, anger at the world, and indigence. The fear becomes self fulfilling.

(As an aside, I often hear people refer to "slave wages". This term completely misses the point of slavery. Slavery has nothing to do with low wages. Slavery has everything to do with being directed and with not having the freedom to act according to one's own will. The conviction that low wages are slave wages is a manifestation of materialistic beliefs.)

Oppression can occur in schools. Should a teacher hand out rewards and punishments on an arbitrary basis, the student may experience a loss of control. This can be particularly true if the punishments themselves are strange. For example if the punishment is to be publicly dressed down and to be forced to issue an unfelt apology for some infraction, the student may experience a loss of control and may not understand the object of her anger. She can be lead into a situation where every attempt to break free becomes another ineffective act of defiance that turns into another embarrassing experience. It can be much worse than out right physical punishment. Not that I am a fan of physical punishment, but at least it can generally have the effect of focusing her anger in a simple and understandable way. The feeling of loss of control can result not only from punishments but from the perception of punishment. A student who is constantly oppressed, or perceived to be oppressed, in school year after year by multiple teachers and fellow students and who cannot effectively defy her tormentors may become indigent.

Whether inside or out of the family, indigence results from a fearful attitude adopted to keep a low profile. In a radical sense, everyone is free at all times. The oppressed child is free to defy her parents and suffer the violence. The slave is free to run away and risk being caught and beaten. However, these choices are radical because the consequences are very hard to take especially if the consequences are continuing and unpredictable, especially if death is feared. This defiant attitude explains how some people are able to break out of the circle of violence and become prosperous people, and the difficulty of defying an oppressor also explains why most people do not.

The defiance does not have to be ubiquitous. As an example consider Uncle Tom. Those who use the Term "Uncle Tom" to refer to a compliant black person, fail to understand that in the end Uncle Tom is defiant. When asked to plow the field, Uncle Tom plows the field: compliance, apparently. But! When Simon Legree asks the location of Cassy and Emmeline, Uncle Tom refuses to tell. In the end, he is defiant; he is his own man; he is a man with convictions who will suffer whatever is dispensed without compromising his principles. Uncle Tom is not a compliant black person; he is a self-made man. Any kind of defiance in the face of oppression will forestall indigence.

The discussion above has implications for government. The more control governmental leaders exercise, the more indigence will exist. Governmental leaders can and do take on the role of the slave masters when they take the fruits of the people's labor through taxes, apply thousands of pieces of petty legislation which they presume to call "law", and throw thousands of people in jail for violations of arbitrary petty regulations. Even worse, governmental leaders become slave masters when, enforcing political correctness, they inflict strange punishments like publically dressing down an individual or group and forcing an unfelt apology for some supposed infraction. When a person meets the government face to face and is unable to defy it, he may retract into a shell of fear and become indigent. When a person is tended by well meaning bureaucrats, he may become frozen in fear should he feel the threat that the largesse may cease. Because the government is well armed, he may feel the threat of death. He would be an indigent.

Indigence, then, results from the individual's unwillingness or inability to defy an oppressor.