“Chapter 13: Submission to the Authorities,” by Paul, Letter to the Romans, http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=romans%2013:1-7&version=31.
“Mmm, thatâ€™s interesting,” by “Not One of Chad’s Little Sheep,” Clean Cut Kid, 12 April 2005, http://www.cleancutkid.com/2005/04/09/ways-to-actually-reduce-abortions#comment-1141.
“Freedom of contract is great,” by “Not One of Chad’s Little Sheep,” Clean Cut Kid, 12 April 2005, http://www.cleancutkid.com/2005/04/09/ways-to-actually-reduce-abortions#comment-1143.
Yesterday I blogged on the unequal nature of work. This post extends that words and also replies to a comment on CCK
I’m using the following definitions
- vertical control is domination supported by nonconsentual violence
- horizontal control is domination not supported by nonconsentual violence
For example, the following groups may excersize vertical control against you
- The IRS (they will take your property)
- The Police (they can imprison you)
- Thugs (also may take your property, but with less fuss and more random violence than the IRS)
Meanwhile, the following probably are excersizing horizontol control over you
- Friends (be rude to them, they will be rude to you)
- Employer (not show up on time, he will stop paying you)
- Parent (“fail” expectations, they are no longer proud of you)
Systems of horizontal and vertical control can interact. Saint Paul created a morality of authority to get followers to peer pressure each other into obeying the government — horizontal pressure reenforcing vertical pressure.
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Vertical controls are sometimes used to reenforce horizontal ones as well. Hillary Clinton is noteably encouraging the government to force employers to recognize religions — an authority of morality
Vertical and Horizontal Controls can be strong or weak. Roughly, a control is weak if it can be profitably violated to little personal ill effect. For example, the following prohibitions:
- Strong Vertical: Terrorism, Murder, Bank Robbery
- Weak Vertical: Littering
- Strong Horizontal: “Stealing” a significant other
- Weak Horizontal: Spitting outdoors
The ultimate consequences of violating strong controls may be severe, regardless of whether they are vertical or horizontal. Breaking the strong vertical prohibitions may lead to imprisonment or even death. But breaking strong horizontal prohibitions can also lead serious emotional which can kill (suicide).
What’s nice about horizontal controls is that they are voluntary. If a man wishes to be a devout Catholic and observe all the canon laws, fine – the Church will have horizontal control of you. If not, fine – the Church no longer has that control. If you yearn for the acceptance of your friends, you are under their horizontal control and must be the friend they wish you to be. If not, be yourself.
Note how the voluntary nature of horizontal controls affects the bargaining situation. There are thousands of faiths in the world, so if a man just wishes to be faithful he has tremendous buyer power. But if that man wishes to be a devout and noted Roman Catholic in the Sioux Falls Archdioces, suddendly that Churh has immense sellign power. In horizontal control, the bargaining positions are voluntary.
One last note: horizontal and vertical rules can be implicit or explicit. Implicit rules are often recognized as “natural” while explicit ones are “artificial.” For example
- Implicit Vertical: murder (the legal term is a heinous crime or crime of moral terpitude)
- Explicit Vertical: accounting fraud
- Implicit Horizontal: murder (even in anarchy, few people would kill even if able to get away with it)
- Explicit Horizontal: When at an expensive restaurant, use the outer silverwear first
Note the overlap between implicit vertical and implicit horizontal controls — both are “natural.” And also notice the calculation needed to avoid violating explicit rules — both are “unnatural.” Any rule can be internalized and made implicit — public nudity is an implicit vertical prohibition in the United States and a implicit horizontal prohibition pretty much everywhere.
This all leads up to two comments on Clean Cut Kid on spousal abuse
The abusing spouse has inordinate control over the abused spouse. The inherent power of the abusing spouse makes their abuse worse than that doled out in a simple battery outside of a marriage or relationship and abuse of that power should receive greater punishment.
Freedom of contract is great. When the parties are of equal strength. It has no application in the case of spousal abuse where, typically, the abusing spouse has inordinate control over the abused spouse.
I thank the poster for the comments, but the comments themselves are spurious. The husband has the selling power the wife wishes, and the wife has the selling power the husband wishes. Each spouse only open to abuse to the extent that spouse chooses — further, each spouse recognizes abuse to the extent that spouse chooses.
A devout Muslim woman may choose (have an internalized horizontal ruleset that states) to recognize abuse as being told to appear in public without a veil (“forced” to be “immodest”). A secular American man may choose (have an internalized horizontal ruleset that states) to recognize abuse as being calmly verbally abused (“nagged”). Each recognizes and accepts those actions
On the othe hand, laws against spousal abuse are vertical controls. They are non voluntary. Spousal abuse laws are completely nonhorizontal — they are culturally arbitrary. American laws against spousal abuse may heavily punish a striker but consider the woman who wishes to be veiled weird (at best). Analagous Saudi laws are the reverse.
And such is the way of controls, both implicit and explicit, strong and weak, vertical and horizontal.