Violence Breeds Violence

More and more through science we are confirming the Buddha’s teachings on karma. In an article last month at Wired.com, kindness was shown to breed further acts of kindness.

Experimenters created a game where “selfishness made more sense than cooperation,” however, “acts of giving were tripled over the course of the experiment by other subjects who were directly or indirectly influenced to contribute more.” Here is a visual representation of those effects:

Understanding karma, I believe this multiplying effect should also hold true for acts of violence, coercion, or threat. If we treat people poorly, they are likely to treat us poorly in return. Therefore, evidence seems to show that we should follow the good ol’ golden rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated.

The Non-Aggression Principle

As I understand it, the Buddhist moral notion of karma is congruent with libertarian-anarchist ethic of the non-aggression principle – which states that all initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons is inherently illegitimate.

Although Buddha obviously cannot comment on the political theories past his time, I think if he understood our current understanding of government he would see that it is in strict violation of this principle.

Libertarian anarchists consider non-voluntary taxes (a process used to fund almost any government that has ever existed) to be a form of initiated aggression. Therefore, no matter the well-intentioned goals of politicians, the very means of government is seen as immoral. In Ayn Rands words, “Force and mind are opposite; morality ends where a gun begins.”

I think Buddha too would agree that you cannot create a moral society through the immorality of government coercion. Only free choice builds moral fiber. Even when people are forced to pay for others health care, housing, or food, they are in the process of becoming slaves, not saints. Not only is this a morally illegitimate way of building the society we want, it is impossible. In Buddhism the means don’t justify the ends: the means determine the ends.

Lead By Example, Not By Force

Karma teaches reciprocity. Only by being the change we wish to see in the world can we make a positive difference. We don’t create society by stepping into a voting booth once a year, we create society through our day-to-day actions and how we treat others. We lead by example; and when we do this, we inspire people’s hearts and minds to do the same.

An individual’s freedom is a prerequisite for all moral behavior. You cannot force or threat others to be good, you can only guide them through example and reason. People too can be guided the wrong way through example and reason. Morality is always and everywhere a battle of ideas. It starts in our minds and it spreads through our actions.

Government: Old Idea, Bad Idea, or Both?

The need to govern others is an ancient idea: master and servant, leader and follower, boss and worker are all distinctions buried in our unconscious. It is not just an old idea, but an idea we often take for granted. Modern America condemns it’s history with slavery but doesn’t yet see the the shapes and forms it takes through the veil of democratic government; in which, even Thomas Jefferson considered “mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Today this is sometimes referred to as tyranny of the majority. To learn more I recommend Hans Hermann Hoppe’s great book, “Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order.”

Schools somewhat condition us to accept government; democracy being the glorified system of “fairness.” Many people I know find it hard to even imagine a peaceful society without any form of government. Instead they hear “anarchy” and imagine Molotov cocktails being thrown through windows – complete chaos and rebellion. But the truth is humans self-organize all of the time without the help of government bureaucracy. Even children can put together community baseball games without authoritarian oversight. The Austrian economist Friedrich A. Hayek would probably draw a parallel between this kind of social behavior and the “spontaneous order” of a laissez-faire economy.

My point is that the absence of government is not equal to a state of disorder. Humans organize voluntarily (out of their own free will) all of the time; of all people, Buddhists should recognize this inherent interconnectedness between individuals. So we shouldn’t need government to command our actions like some sort of ant colony – our ability to get along with others is a built into our humanity.

Am I suggesting that anarchy is a utopia? It may sound like it, but I assure you that I am not. How can you expect a perfect society from imperfect individuals? You can’t. It’s not realistic. But it is realistic to believe that humans can coexist peacefully without big brother government. Sure, there will still be crime and evils in the world and we will have to deal with those accordingly. But government may not be the answer to poverty, drug abuse, or even murder. Perhaps before looking to our paternal state for all the solutions to society we should take a deep gaze into ourselves; and see how we as individuals are personally responsible for the world around us.

Scientists already know that nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs next to heroin. Those who are dependent on cigarettes on a daily basis are at risk of being labeled drug addicts. But how easy is it to tell the difference between drug addiction and choice of habit? And what is our obligation as a society to help those who are addicted and prevent others from getting hooked?

It isn’t just that smoking cigarettes is addictive; it is deadly too. And when we start seeing loved ones dying early due to lung cancer then the issue becomes more and more urgent to address.

There is, however, a distinct hypocrisy in how the U.S. government is trying to manipulate others to quit smoking.

On one side of the coin the government knows and propagates much information on the hazards of smoking cigarettes through different ad campaigns, as well legislation that requires cigarette companies to print warning labels on every pack. They recognize it as both a highly physical and psychological addiction, and rightfully so.

Many smokers understand that smoking is bad yet they still can’t quit. But what then does the government do to deter people from this nasty habit?

One popular choice is to raise taxes. President Obama signed a law earlier this year to raise taxes from 39 cents to $1.01 per pack of cigarettes and from 19.5 cents to 50 cents per pound for chewing tobacco, making it the single largest cigarette tax hike in our history. But how effective is this strategy and in what ways does it have unintended consequences?

For many in our country, cigarettes are not felt to be a luxury but a necessity. In economic terms, we would say cigarettes have a low elasticity in demand, meaning individuals are usually willing to pay more for the same quantity. We know full well how difficult cigarette withdrawals can be, we know how addictive nicotine is, yet government puts individuals in a situation where they are forced to fork more money out of their pockets to sustain their addiction. Some of these people are already experiencing difficult financial troubles. Is this right?

Raising taxes on cigarettes does more harm than good. Sure, some may grow the courage to quit. In fact, according to the Washington Post, 17.5% of New Yorkers quit after the first tax increase and ad campaign in 2006, but it doesn’t distinguish which was actually more effective: the tax increase or the ad campaign?

We can’t necessarily trust government pseudoscience on whether or not tax increases actually lower smoking rates. But even if tax increases do help some to kick the habit, the majority of smokers are being taken advantage of. It is even worse for those who are addicted the hardest.

This is no way to help people.

I would like to see society focus more on helping others through education rather than tax coercion. This means respecting others free will and free choice, but still looking out for their best interests.

To start, I appreciate the efforts of both profit and non-profit ad campaigns, education programs, and treatment facilities that help those who are willing to seek it.

But what about those who aren’t yet willing to seek help but may in fact need it? To what extent do we have the right to intervene on someone’s personal habits?

We then find ourselves back at the original question posed earlier: To what extent are individuals smoking by their own free choice, and to what extent do they need to be saved from themselves? What right do we have to intervene? And how much intervention is too much if we want to continue living in a free society?

These are the types of questions that we need to ask ourselves as a society. The answers will have major implications on future government policy – not just with cigarette smoking – but other health risks such as poor eating habits and the obesity epidemic.

How helpful is government force in correcting these problems while still respecting others’ free choice?

Or are there more effective (and less harmful) ways we can move society to a better state of health?