Labour's smoking ban killed the British pub

[MyUserName]

If law enforcement does not have the last resort of violence how do they stop people who refuse to follow the law?!

If I simply refuse to follow the law, pay the fine, go to prison etc. then police officers will come to my house, physically over power me and force me in to prison. They will any amount of violence I cause them to use. If I come out, refusing to negotiate, swinging punches I will get sprayed, if I come out in full armour with a sharp sword I will probably be shot (although being tasered would be hilarious) etc.

Most people would probably accept the rulings anyway as it is in their interests to be part of a society but I am sure that there are some who would not.

Being as people know that they have this they do not seem to need to use it that much (in terms of how many people accept court punishment compared to how many ignore everything until they are beaten to the ground).

[SpontaneousOrder]

If law enforcement does not have the last resort of violence how do they stop people who refuse to follow the law?!

If I simply refuse to follow the law, pay the fine, go to prison etc. then police officers will come to my house, physically over power me and force me in to prison. They will any amount of violence I cause them to use. If I come out, refusing to negotiate, swinging punches I will get sprayed, if I come out in full armour with a sharp sword I will probably be shot (although being tasered would be hilarious) etc.

Most people would probably accept the rulings anyway as it is in their interests to be part of a society but I am sure that there are some who would not.

Being as people know that they have this they do not seem to need to use it that much (in terms of how many people accept court punishment compared to how many ignore everything until they are beaten to the ground).

Exactly - threats are only useful if you back them up. This is why people need to understand (and I have no idea how people don't, but whatever...) that when a Labour government, for example, makes up several thousand new laws they are actually making up several thousand new reasons to use violence against people.

So the smoking ban (which I love in a purely selfish way) isn't a big deal because of economic reasons, or irritation to smokers. It's a big deal because it means that the mob has voted to use violent force against peaceful people for choosing to run a pub where people have a choice to enter or not, and a choice to smoke or not.

[d000hg]

Am I misunderstanding your question?

Yep. If the only way the government /police can enforce laws is through the option of resorting to violence, how can teachers expect to be able to enforce rules at school without the same option?

Or for that matter, parents... seems to me that the fact parents can raise children without threatening them with violence indicates people will follow rules without that threat.

[MyUserName]

This reply is for the benefit of viewers at home as, despite often mentioning me, d000gh apparently has me on his ignore list.

Yep. If the only way the government /police can enforce laws is through the option of resorting to violence, how can teachers expect to be able to enforce rules at school without the same option?

They do have the same option. If a violent pupil refuses to follow the rules they will be excluded, if they insist on ignoring that ruling (and their parents cannot stop them) then police will be called, if they refuse to co-operate with the police then they will be forced to (obviously using minimum force). I have actually seen this in action in my secondary school.

Or for that matter, parents... seems to me that the fact parents can raise children without threatening them with violence indicates people will follow rules without that threat.

Ignoring the obvious cheap shot and staying on topic ...

Some people will, most people will. However, there is a minority would not - even if that minority is 1 person. If you do not have force to back your claims then they can be ignored by anyone stubborn and aggressive enough, or your society will just be taken over by one that does use force.

[Gittins Gal]

Why do you insist on ignoring the question? What special superhero powers do government workers have that other men do not? Why does it require a coercive state apparatus in order to provide that safety net?

Shut up.

You're making me look like a lefty.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Yep. If the only way the government /police can enforce laws is through the option of resorting to violence, how can teachers expect to be able to enforce rules at school without the same option?

Or for that matter, parents... seems to me that the fact parents can raise children without threatening them with violence indicates people will follow rules without that threat.

You mean they can incentivise/encourage kids to follow the rules. That's very different from enforcing laws.
Obeying laws is mandatory. Following rules is voluntary.

If you're alluding to the fact that people can be incentivised to behave in a certain way without using force (you mentioned trade sanctions earlier) then I would totally agree - that's exactly how a free society would likely make sure that antisocial behaviour was dealt with, etc.

BUT, ultimately compliance is still voluntary and as such it wouldn't really be a law.
Laws are forcefully enforced - there is no choice when it comes to paying tax. There is no choice when it comes to not thieving (force is used to recover what was taken / put you in jail).
The sanction of force is integral to the definition of law. Otherwise it's just the market in action.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Shut up.

You're making me look like a lefty.

<patronising voice> How long have you considered yourself a (not very 'extreme') libertarian? I used to be like you. What's the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist? about 6 months. </patronising voice>

[Gittins Gal]

<patronising voice> How long have you considered yourself a (not very 'extreme') libertarian? I used to be like you. What's the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist? about 6 months. </patronising voice>

Since I started reading Rod Liddle.

No - all my life probably. I'm an independent free spirit (so I like to think)

[MyUserName]

Since I started reading Rod Liddle.

No - all my life probably. I'm an independent free spirit (so I like to think)

Could you teach d000hg?

[Gittins Gal]

Could you teach d000hg?

He's probably iggied me by now!