TAG YOUR BOOTS

By

Joe Wilkins, Copyright © 2015

(This essay will prove uncomfortable to some readers. I wish it were not so, but hard reality is often that way.  Contained herein is a point of view formed over a long counseling career, working with, and trying to help some of the most dysfunctional people in our society. I am demonstrating one system than can be helpful in dealing with unwanted, deviant behavior in our society. It is not the only way to approach the problem, but I contend it is the simplest, most effective way. These ideas are incorporated in Chapter 7, “Tough Love,” of my book How To Raise Successful Children, which is available on Amazon.com.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Many people today are wondering what is wrong with America? They see crime rising, illegitimate births increasing, illegal immigrants flooding across our borders, a criminal justice system that is more responsive to criminals than to the victims, illegal drugs readily available on many street corners, health care costs rising astronomically, unemployment and poverty increasing, and the national debt skyrocketing. In fact, the problems are so numerous that it is becoming almost impossible to feel what is right with America. And this is causing a low-grade pessimism among the people that is settling over our country like a smothering fog. Most of us do not like it, but we don’t know what, or how, to change it.

Well, there are some things we can do, as illustrated by the following true story.

The United States Marine Corps sends all new recruits to Paris Island, South Carolina for basic training—or for physical and attitude adjustment training, as an ex-Marine friend of mine puts it. These recruits come from all over the country, from all lifestyles, different races, educational levels, and social backgrounds—about as diverse a group one could find. In addition, these men present a special problem to the Marine Corps: in just twelve weeks, the Corps has to get all these different personalities thinking and working alike, with there being little room for individualism. The realities of combat demand they work together as disciplined units, ready to defend our country on a moment’s notice should the need arise.

Seems like an impossible task, doesn’t it? Especially in view of the fact that many other organizations, which have the need to get people working toward society’s goals, are unable to do so. Consider families that can’t get their children to behave; parole boards that are unable to get newly released prisoners to obey the laws; welfare agencies that can’t get people to quit having babies they can’t take care of; treatment facilities that can’t make alcoholics and drug addicts stay clean and sober; abused women who can’t get their husbands to stop beating them. The list is endless, and you could doubtless add many of you own examples.

Nevertheless, I contend there is a way to control such behaviors, if we can only muster up the gumption to take the appropriate actions. And the Marine Corps can show us a productive way.

The year was 1967 and the war in Viet Nam was cooking. The Marines needed new men in large numbers—fast! For one particular platoon it was the tenth week of their basic training, with only two weeks to go. The men were doing well, looking forward to graduation and becoming full-fledged marines.

“Everyone fall out tomorrow for a twenty-mile, forced march,” announced their drill instructor. “I want full field packs—with helmets, double ammo, full canteens–and take an extra pair of boots. Don’t leave anything behind because you’re going to need all your gear. I want you fully outfitted and prepared for anything that might come up.”

The next morning off they marched, each man loaded down with over fifty pounds of gear, headed for Ellis Beach, ten miles away. Finally, after marching, hot and tired, they arrived at the beach, with their feet hurting, and their packs now seeming to weigh hundreds of pounds. They had been resting just a few moments when a truck rumbled up alongside the platoon.

“Okay,” the drill instructor barked out, “rest a minute, drink some water, then take off your boots, tie them together with these tags I’m handing out. Put your last name and serial number on the tags and throw your boots on the truck. Then get out your spare boots and put ‘em on. We’ll be marching back in five minutes.”

Immediately the men hustled to comply with his orders—except for one man. That lone, non-compliant recruit just stood there, looking despondent and hopeless. The drill instructor noticed him soon, and bellowed in his face, “What’s wrong, Marine? Didn’t you hear me? Tag those boots!”

“But, sir—I—I can’t,” he blurted out in desperation.

“And why not?” challenged the drill instructor.

“Because I didn’t bring my extra boots.”

“Well, that’s just too bad. Off with those boots—now!”

The recruit was desperate now. “But, sir, he implored, “I’ll have to march back barefooted.”

The drill instructor was losing patience. “Tag those boots!” he screamed.

The recruit immediately sat down and hurriedly took off his boots. He looked around at the others, but realized there would be no sympathy from them. There was disdain and condemnation in their faces.

Then the platoon began the march back. They hiked through scrub and briars, palmettos and sandspurs, hot asphalt and concrete. The drill instructor intentionally made the trip back more difficult, causing the barefooted recruit all the pain imaginable. After a while, the recruit could take no more, and dropped out of formation by the side of the road, while the others marched on. He was then ordered into the truck and taken straight to the brig, where he “cooled his heels” for several days, wondering nervously what was going to happen to him. However, after the drill instructor figured he had “learned his lesson,” he rejoined his platoon. He was a model marine from then on.

The recruit had learned his lesson well—and fast. Very few words were exchanged. No attempts were made to find out why he had left his boots behind. He was not referred to a counselor to determine the source of his rebellion and passive-aggressive anger toward the Marine Corps. No attempt was made to reason with him. There was no getting the other men involved, other than they had only viewed his behavior, and how he was dealt with. This was a simple case of, “If you don’t do as I say, then something bad will happen to you!” Tag your boots!

Now some readers may think the drill instructor was too harsh, that the punishment was cruel and unusual. However, others may think he should have been made to march the whole way back, and, doubtless, some drill instructors may have done just that. But the bottom line is the technique worked. The Marines Corps reinforced its authority, the recruit learned a valuable lesson, the platoon progressed forward, and everyone graduated from basic training as full-fledged marines. One could wonder what kind of marines they would have become if the wayward recruit had gotten away with his scheme and was not punished. I contend the platoon would not have been as dedicated and efficient. Thus, the punishment was appropriate.

With this incident, we see illustrated a principle that is the whole point of this essay: if we want to prevent people from committing certain objectionable behaviors, then we must follow their misdeeds   with consequences they do not want to happen. However, this punishment must be used selectively and in an appropriate manner. It’s clear that “tagging your boots” is one form of punishment, and punishment is looked upon as anathema by many in our society. Some even view punishment as evil, and should be avoided at all costs. A few years ago, a young man in Singapore broke one of their laws, and was sentenced to be whipped with canes, causing a tremendous uproar around the world—especially with a huge portion of American society, incensed that Singapore would have the audacity to punish a lawbreaker in such a manner.

Since punishment is looked upon by many as one might view a rattlesnake, the science of psychology might allay those feelings somewhat. Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that learned responses of avoidance and fear have a strong impact on our personality development when we are young. Punishment is essential to the development of these inhibitory emotions, which help control inappropriate behaviors that do not serve the individual and the community well. People with no fear and guilt can be dangerous, because they have no internal “inhibitors” that prevent them from committing certain deeds. Conversely, people with a healthy set of fear and guilt feelings are not likely to break many of society’s rules or laws, because these are feelings people tend to avoid, thus the behavior causing them rarely occurs. Misdeeds committed by those who don’t feel guilty—because they weren’t punished as children in a responsible, loving manner—will be repeated over and over.

Other research shows that, with young boys, it is more important that the father administer such discipline rather than the mother. A mother simply has less power to instill appropriate fear and guilt in a son than does the father—although the mother does have some influence. However, as young boys mature, the social-identity process impels them toward males as role models, and a good father is the best model.

This speaks to a disturbing trend currently in our society, whereby we condone and reward single motherhood, producing legions of young men who do not know how to behave as responsible males, because they adopt males outside their families as role models, males who do not always have their best interests at heart. An adolescent male, loaded with testosterone and aggressive hormones, who has not been taught by significant males the proper roles of guilt, shame, and fear, is trouble on the rise. This capacity for fear and guilt is the end product of a sequence of child-rearing activities, using love-oriented punishment, leading to strong identification with the same sex parent. To put it more simply, the best drill instructors for young men in boot camp are males.

One study showed that many anti-social boys tend to come from those homes where the parents were cold, distant, or absent—not from homes that disciplined and punished with love. Sparing the loving rod of discipline tends to produce incomplete children.

Social psychology clearly shows us the complexity of reward and punishment on the development of children’s moral codes and inhibitions, with their willingness to follow society’s rules. Most criminals are people who have not been taught when they were young how to behave properly. However, parents are not totally to blame here: the schools, TV, literature, peers, gangs, and other aspects of our society share in the upbringing of our children, and often teach and reinforce many negative attitudes and behavior. If one accepts the premise that the total society is to blame for criminal behavior, we are then left with a huge, apparently unsolvable dilemma: that, in a free republic, we can’t seem to unite sufficiently to control all these dysfunctional “teachers” of our children to prevent the production of criminals. So, we throw up our hands in despair and do little to solve the problem.

However, complaining is but a temporary catharsis, engaged in by politicians, the media, and citizens of rhetoric. Sensible people know that once our wayward children reach adulthood, as a practical matter, it’s too late to teach them those lessons they needed to learn as children. The horse is already out of the barn, so to speak.

Thus, with the adult criminal we are left with only one option: we have to do whatever is necessary to prevent people from committing crimes. We can’t go inside the heads of such people and change dysfunctional attitudes at this late date—something that is only occassionaly possible using psychotherapeutic techniques, which are slow and prohibitively expensive, and rarely work. (That old joke applies very well here: How many counselors does it take to change a light bulb? A lot, but the bulb has to really want to change.) Thus for people who  continuously break laws, if they have no internal roadmap of fear or guilt to stop them, then we as a society must give them some sort of external fear that will stop them. We have to use the threat of punishment to stop their misdeeds. It’s our primary option. Tag your boots!

In alcohol and drug treatment there is a rule that says that once someone becomes physically addicted, they will never be able to safely drink or use drugs again without suffering serious—and often fatal—consequences. Only when the addict arrives at the point where this reality is true for him or her, is there an improved chance for sobriety. If the addict realizes that continued use of alcohol or drugs will cause that person to die or go crazy, there will then be an improved chance for sobriety. The chemical that the addict used to love and cherish so much, becomes the punisher. Tag your boots!

Next, consider the drug smuggler. Anyone with the proper know-how can fly to south America, buy some cocaine, re-enter the United States, sell the cocaine, and make a huge profit, with very little chance of getting caught. This behavior is going on all the time, as many of my former clients related to me in detail. And these smugglers are killing and ruining more lives than can be imagined—costing our society an enormous price. But the drug dealers do not care, and they feel no guilt or fear. Their motivation is greed, with no concern about the human destruction they are causing. There is no little voice inside them saying, “Don’t do that! It’s wrong!” They do it anyway.

The question has become, how do we stop them? Over the years, we have tried many things that do not work: rehabilitation programs, weak prison terms, confiscation of ill-gotten property, increasing public awareness, and patrolling the nation’s point of entries. And each year the smuggling and drug abuse increases, while the public demands more drugs.

But there’s one thing we haven’t done; we have not made these smugglers and dealers tag their boots. How can we do this? Pass and implement laws that say, “If you smuggle drugs into this country, or sell drugs, we’ll catch you, and when we do you will be quickly prosecuted–and executed.” Then the public can sit back and watch the drug trafficking grind to a halt. Tag your boots.

Next, consider illegal immigration. This problem is now out of control, and the Congress and the President hasn’t the knowledge or will to fix it. Some people abroad have the notion that America is the solution to the world’s problems, with the effect that many people in less fortunate parts of the world want to come to America to improve their lives—and there are many Americans willing to let them come, legal or not. Thus, each day thousands of illegal immigrants slip across our borders. If we continue to allow this, it can bankrupt our social-welfare, educational, and work-related systems. With the world’s population projected to double within the next fifty years, the conditions pushing this illegal immigration trend will only increase, thus the problem is not going away.

To get a true fix on the current immigration situation, look at it from an illegal immigrant’s perspective. Here he is living in Mexico or Central America, living in squalor, with no job, no hope for the future, too many children, and a poor societal support system. His children will have a worse life than him, because the future is grim.  The population is exploding out of control, resources are dwindling, and the political leaders are helpless to turn things around. It is evident that everyone will have to do with less. However, he has learned that in America, there exists everything he wants and needs. So, one night he slips across the border—and it doesn’t matter if the border patrol sees him or not, because he knows they are under orders not to use force. Eventually he will get a job from someone who is desperate for cheap labor, who will pay him with cash that will not be reported to the government. And even if he is caught, they will simply load him onto an air-conditioned bus and drive him back across the border, where he will keep trying to cross again. He can’t lose. And once he finally gets settled in America, he can manipulate the system, get some welfare benefits and food stamps, make arrangements to get his family across, and send his children to the wonderful, free schools. What a country!

But one thing bothers him; he heard one border guard being interviewed on the radio, saying that thousands of illegal immigrants cross the border each day, and he is powerless to stop them, because he has been forbidden to use force. All he can do is holler on the bullhorn and tell them to go back home—which they never do because there is no punishment for crossing the border. Then the guard says that if he were allowed to shoot just one immigrant—after fair warning—the immigrant flow would stop. It is certain that if prospective illegal immigrants knew they would be shot if they attempted the crossing, they wouldn’t try it. And if no one tried it, no one would be shot. But there is no boot- tagging in the US Immigration Service.

Already some  readers of this essay are squirming and shifting in their chairs. They think this is too extreme—shooting illegal immigrants! What would the carnage be like? Moreover, how do you shoot just one illegal immigrant. America is constitutionally incapable of doing this, given the current state of the American psyche. However, there would be less carnage with boot-tagging than without it, and I am sure we could develop other boot-tagging options to replace the shooting of immigrants.  With swift, sure consequences hanging over their heads, most people will quit doing those things they shouldn’t. And those few who continue their bad ways—and are dealt with severely—wouldn’t get much sympathy from most Americans. We will save that for the victims.

A woman friend of mine married a man from Iran, with whom she had three sons. Occasionally they would go back to Iran to visit his relatives. One day she absent-mindedly left her purse, with considerable cash in it, on a store counter for several hours after leaving. When she realized what she had done, she rushed back to the store to retrieve it—and it was still in the same place where she had left it. All her cash and possessions were still within; no one had touched or disturbed it. She said that was not unusual in Iran because there is little thievery. Why? Because in Iran, convicted thieves are punished by having a hand cut off! And she said she didn’t see anyone with missing hands. She concluded that thievery had been abolished in Iran. Tag your boots!

Consider the traffic light. Did you ever notice that everyone stops for the red light: rich, poor, crooks, the mentally ill, drunks, rapists, murderers, middle-class, lower-class, high-class—virtually every- one in societies around the world. You name the group and they all stop for red lights. Why do they obey this rule, yet disregard others that we value, which are just as important? It is because the consequence of going through a red light is a boot-tagging situation, whereby the offender stands a high probability of being smashed into by another vehicle.

A counselor friend of mine tells the story about a relative of his in rural Alabama, who had a husband who was “bad to drink,” as they called drunkenness in that area. For years this alcoholic’s main form of recreation was to get roaring drunk several times a month, then come home and beat  up and terrorize his wife and children. His wife had endured this for years because she had been taught by her parents and her church to be subservient and obedient to her husband.

But the day came when her tolerance was exhausted; she could endure it no more. One day he came home drunk again, and began calling her derogatory names–then began hitting her. That did it!

For all those years, she had endured his abuse—but no more! This was it—her pot was boiling over! This enraged woman, suddenly energized to the strength of Wonder Woman by her years of pent-up anger, knocked her staggering husband to the floor with a mighty blow with her fist. Then she jumped on top of him, grabbed him by both ears and began beating his head on the floor, screaming, “You drunken bastard, you no-good-son-of-a-bitch, you lousy excuse of a man. I’m going to kill you!” She beat his head on the floor until he stopped moving, believing she had killed him, until she noticed he was still breathing. He was unconscious.

The next morning he got up from the floor, hung-over, battered, and sick—and puzzled. He remembered nothing of what had happened, having been in an apparent alcoholic blackout. All he knew was that he was hurting and sick. “What happened?” he moaned to his wife. “Feels like a truck ran over me. And my ears hurt real bad!”

His wife looked at him long and hard, the fires of anger still raging in her. “A truck did run over you, and that truck was me. And I ain’t putting up with no more of your drunken ways. I beat you last night ‘til I thought you were dead. And if you ever walk back in this house drunk again, I’ll make sure you’re dead the next time.”

He knew she meant it, because she never said things she didn’t mean. He figured that she would kill him—probably shoot him next time. So, he never drank again. Their marriage survived and they both lived into old age. Tag your boots.

As the next illustration of this principle, consider the law of gravity. As we all know, gravity is a universal constant (Just ask Sir Isaac Newton!)—a force that applies around the world. It does not discriminate, and acts equally on each of us regardless of age, sex, race, religious persuasion, or socio-economic status. No matter who you are, gravity will treat all persons equally. There is no discrimination here for malcontents to whine about. We can jokingly note that there has never been a single case in history where the law of gravity showed any favoritism. All people who journey to the top of the Empire State Building, for instance, and jump off, will be treated equally by gravity. No ifs or buts, if you jump you will be a terrific smash on the street below.

Now consider those times when the reader has been on high places and wondered what it would be like to jump off and soar like a bird. Wouldn’t that be thrilling, we think. Most people have had that experience—especially as children when we’re still exploring our world. We can almost experience the thrill of the free fall. Ah, the trip down would be exhilarating—to which all parachutists and bungee jumpers can testify. But we don’t jump. Why? Because we all know the law of gravity will lead to that fatal stop at the end. Tag your boots.

Several thousand years ago, one of the world’s great spiritual leaders, Moses, saw that his people needed some stricter rules to live by, so he went up on a mountain and came back with God’s Ten Commandments. Much like the Marine drill instructor, there were certain rules that God required of his people. But, alas, most people don’t follow them very well, instead treating them more or less like the Ten Suggestions. We no longer seem to require ourselves and others to obey them. Thus, we’ve lost these ancient tag-your-boots rules.

This leads us to an area that needs consideration: namely those roadblocks, currently emphasized in America, that inhibit us from effectively using punishment as a behavioral control for unwanted deviant behavior. One of the primary roadblocks in these times seems to be the confusing matter of rehabilitation vs. punishment. It has gotten to the point that the dream of rehabilitation has insisted that punishment is old school and is no longer needed. Thus, our laws and legal systems have progressed to the point that capital punishment is cruel and unusual. Reasons abound for this stance: he is a sinner, but deserves our forgiveness; Jesus would forgive him, so who are we not to do so; two wrongs don’t make a right; vengeance is mine, says the Lord; criminal behavior is a symptom of mental illness, so he must be treated rather than punished; punishment doesn’t work, only makes the person angrier; etc.

Many reasons are given not to take harsh action against criminals. The problem with this orientation is that it focuses on the criminal, to the neglect of the victim. However, if a person is murdered, then that life is gone forever, and nothing can be done to bring it back. That leaves us with only the perpetrator left to deal with, and it seems we do not have the stomach to apply appropriate punishment. In fact, we seem to no longer be able to determine just what is appropriate punishment for the different crimes.

It is implied by some religions and belief systems that a murdered victim is okay because he is now in the arms of God, gone to Nirvana, is in the spiritual realm of the next world, is one with the Force—whatever. Well, if any of these theories or beliefs is true—and it is so good for the believer—then logically it must also be good for the non-believer. Under this scenario, even the non-believers will experience the realities of the afterlife—though we would hope they would receive some sort of punishment for their earthly misdeeds.

However, if there is no afterlife—and no one can prove it exists—then no one gets any justice when a murderer is rehabilitated, yet the victim is dead and gone forever, missing out on the remaining time of life, while the murderer continues on. Where is the justice in that? The reality of all this is that we have taken the notion of rehabilitation so far that we no longer punish. We have become so tolerant and “forgiving” that we will now endure the most horrible of atrocities, and do little or nothing about them.

It would seem logical that we should punish all criminals after they commit their crimes, then if they accept their punishment in the correct spirit, with a truly remorseful attitude, by paying appropriate restitution to their victims, at that point we will then consider rehabilitation. To illustrate, I was recently leading a group-counseling session of criminals, all of whom were on probation or parole. They were feverishly discussing some recent changes in the ways prisoners were now going to be treated while incarcerated in Georgia. Their biggest concern was a very selfish one, in that some rehabilitation opportunities and privileges were being curtailed or stopped, and they didn’t think that was fair. They said that removing weight-lifting equipment, limiting TV watching, and decreasing educational opportunities was going to make prisoners angrier and would cause more trouble. At no time was there any concern for the victims of their crimes. When I brought up the notion that prison was a place for punishment for crimes, and that punishment ought to come first, they launched into all kinds of rationalizations, that rehabilitation was the only way to prevent future crimes. They had little understanding of the role of punishment in their lives, and I deduced that they had experienced little appropriately applied punishment for misdeeds when they were young. To them prison was a resting spot on the difficult journey of life—but certainly not a well-timed punishment.

A second roadblock is the principle to love one’s neighbor as yourself, or, turn the other cheek. Philosophically this is a cryptic message, especially to an angry person who has been wronged. It is true that if a man kills my brother, and I allow myself to become possessed with anger and a desire for revenge, then it will hurt me psychologically. Feelings of hate hurt the one who hates, but it is almost impossible to let go of hate without justice. Since most religions and civil laws do not allow citizens to take justice into their own hands, then it is the responsibility of the State to secure justice for the people by administering the appropriate punishment to law-breakers. Simply following one’s religious dictates is not enough.  Balancing the scales of justice requires that the church and State each administer their prescribed roles, with the punishment of criminals being the province of the State—with forgiveness (as they are being punished) being the responsibility of the victim’s religious beliefs.

It will be noted, for Christians, that Jesus, before and during his crucifixion, never said that the Romans did not have the authority to kill him, nor did he excuse the two thieves crucified along with him by condemning the Romans’ legal authority Thus, it is clear that Jesus recognized Rome’s authority to punish (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars). So it would seem that we’ve boiled it down to justice versus love, and that seems to be the sticking point in many people’s minds. And since these concepts appear to be mutually exclusive, most people jump on one side or the other, while berating the opposite side for being so stupid or unfeeling.

To resolve this dilemma ask yourself this question: Am I showing my love if I allow you to break the laws and do nothing to punish you? The following is what is meant by the principle of loving your neighbor as yourself: Mr. Lawbreaker, society cares about you and respects you as a person, and we want you to have as much individual freedom as possible to pursue your own happiness, but if your pursuit conflicts with your neighbor’s rights, then our legal authorities have the right and duty to punish you appropriately, and we will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that you don’t detract from your neighbors rights. If done properly, this will re-establish your relationship with your neighbor. That is the obligation of the society at large. Whether you get forgiveness and love as a neighbor from me is my burden under my relationship with God.

This religious philosophizing is well and good, and we can take whatever position we like, but our country is not a theocracy; it’s a republic run by secular laws, representing Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, heathens, Satanists, or any other religion one chooses to follow. So. In practice, our nation of laws is the product of the thinking of our Founding Fathers, following a variety of beliefs, sometimes with those beliefs suspended, in order that compromises can be reached to enact laws necessary for us to function in this non-spiritual world. Jesus recognized that these differences are not easily bridged, especially when he talked about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s. This is a critical distinction that we conveniently keep ignoring, but these two worlds are different, and there will always be a wall between them.

Though this secular world is separate from the spiritual one, we nonetheless need to keep them in harmony with each other. Things need to be kept moral and on course. We do not need immoral laws, but we cannot allow religions to impose theological beliefs that conflict with our constitutionally-based laws. Without this congruence our society will eventually dissolve. Religion does not have all the answers needed to effectively deal with the practical, material world, which is the reason we have a secular government as opposed to a theocracy. In this world, the majority of our efforts are spent dealing with matter, information, facts and people–hopefully guided by logic, reason, science, laws and religion. Until we discover better ways to inhibit and prevent negative behavior from our misbehaving brothers and sisters, we must make them tag their boots.

There are endless examples of not tagging our boots, such as parents who don’t set limits with their children, resulting in the kids subsequently walking all over them; welfare agencies that dole out benefits without adequate requirements or consequences; a judicial system that emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment, and gives psychobabble excuses to criminal  behavior; speed limits on our highways that are rarely enforced, and to which no one pays attention; pampered athletes for whom a contract is always something to be renegotiated without fulfilling the original terms, with owners letting them get away with it, and then complaining about the selfishness of the players; politicians who never say what they mean, but always looking good when lying, with the electorate voting them back into office anyway, and then complaining how crooked they are; tobacco company executives who, in spite of all the scientific evidence to the contrary, and a half million deaths per year, continued to lie about the dangers of smoking, yet most of us do nothing and continue to use their products; and millions of couples taking marriage vows before God, the law, and their friends about loving and honoring each other their entire lives, yet divorcing at the slightest provocations—with the children suffering for it. The list is endless.

So, where do we go from here? As you may have already guessed, it is too late to administer loving, child-rearing discipline after the child is grown. Therefore, we have a sizable number of spoiled, undisciplined, whining, lawbreaking people who are causing this society enormous problems. With them, it is too late  to instill the control mechanisms of guilt and fear, which would impel them to obey our laws. However, while punishment will not change their psyches, it will quickly and surely stop certain behaviors in most cases. In a perfect world, we’d like to raise all our children to become model citizens of their own volition, but that is rarely possible. So we have no choice but to make them tag their boots.

 

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

TAG YOUR BOOTS
By
Joe Wilkins, Copyright © 2015
(This essay will prove uncomfortable to some readers. I wish it were not so, but hard reality is often that way. Contained herein is a point of view formed over a long counseling career, working with, and trying to help some of the most dysfunctional people in our society. I am demonstrating one system than can be helpful in dealing with unwanted, deviant behavior in our society. It is not the only way to approach the problem, but I contend it is the simplest, most effective way. These ideas are incorporated in Chapter 7, “Tough Love,” of my book How To Raise Successful Children, which is available on Amazon.com.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Many people today are wondering what is wrong with America? They see crime rising, illegitimate births increasing, illegal immigrants flooding across our borders, a criminal justice system that is more responsive to criminals than to the victims, illegal drugs readily available on many street corners, health care costs rising astronomically, unemployment and poverty increasing, and the national debt skyrocketing. In fact, the problems are so numerous that it is becoming almost impossible to feel what is right with America. And this is causing a low-grade pessimism among the people that is settling over our country like a smothering fog. Most of us do not like it, but we don’t know what, or how, to change it.
Well, there are some things we can do, as illustrated by the following true story.
The United States Marine Corps sends all new recruits to Paris Island, South Carolina for basic training—or for physical and attitude adjustment training, as an ex-Marine friend of mine puts it. These recruits come from all over the country, from all lifestyles, different races, educational levels, and social backgrounds—about as diverse a group one could find. In addition, these men present a special problem to the Marine Corps: in just twelve weeks, the Corps has to get all these different personalities thinking and working alike, with there being little room for individualism. The realities of combat demand they work together as disciplined units, ready to defend our country on a moment’s notice should the need arise.
Seems like an impossible task, doesn’t it? Especially in view of the fact that many other organizations, which have the need to get people working toward society’s goals, are unable to do so. Consider families that can’t get their children to behave; parole boards that are unable to get newly released prisoners to obey the laws; welfare agencies that can’t get people to quit having babies they can’t take care of; treatment facilities that can’t make alcoholics and drug addicts stay clean and sober; abused women who can’t get their husbands to stop beating them. The list is endless, and you could doubtless add many of you own examples.
Nevertheless, I contend there is a way to control such behaviors, if we can only muster up the gumption to take the appropriate actions. And the Marine Corps can show us a productive way.
The year was 1967 and the war in Viet Nam was cooking. The Marines needed new men in large numbers—fast! For one particular platoon it was the tenth week of their basic training, with only two weeks to go. The men were doing well, looking forward to graduation and becoming full-fledged marines.
“Everyone fall out tomorrow for a twenty-mile, forced march,” announced their drill instructor. “I want full field packs—with helmets, double ammo, full canteens–and take an extra pair of boots. Don’t leave anything behind because you’re going to need all your gear. I want you fully outfitted and prepared for anything that might come up.”
The next morning off they marched, each man loaded down with over fifty pounds of gear, headed for Ellis Beach, ten miles away. Finally, after marching, hot and tired, they arrived at the beach, with their feet hurting, and their packs now seeming to weigh hundreds of pounds. They had been resting just a few moments when a truck rumbled up alongside the platoon.
“Okay,” the drill instructor barked out, “rest a minute, drink some water, then take off your boots, tie them together with these tags I’m handing out. Put your last name and serial number on the tags and throw your boots on the truck. Then get out your spare boots and put ‘em on. We’ll be marching back in five minutes.”
Immediately the men hustled to comply with his orders—except for one man. That lone, non-compliant recruit just stood there, looking despondent and hopeless. The drill instructor noticed him soon, and bellowed in his face, “What’s wrong, Marine? Didn’t you hear me? Tag those boots!”
“But, sir—I—I can’t,” he blurted out in desperation.
“And why not?” challenged the drill instructor.
“Because I didn’t bring my extra boots.”
“Well, that’s just too bad. Off with those boots—now!”
The recruit was desperate now. “But, sir, he implored, “I’ll have to march back barefooted.”
The drill instructor was losing patience. “Tag those boots!” he screamed.
The recruit immediately sat down and hurriedly took off his boots. He looked around at the others, but realized there would be no sympathy from them. There was disdain and condemnation in their faces.
Then the platoon began the march back. They hiked through scrub and briars, palmettos and sandspurs, hot asphalt and concrete. The drill instructor intentionally made the trip back more difficult, causing the barefooted recruit all the pain imaginable. After a while, the recruit could take no more, and dropped out of formation by the side of the road, while the others marched on. He was then ordered into the truck and taken straight to the brig, where he “cooled his heels” for several days, wondering nervously what was going to happen to him. However, after the drill instructor figured he had “learned his lesson,” he rejoined his platoon. He was a model marine from then on.
The recruit had learned his lesson well—and fast. Very few words were exchanged. No attempts were made to find out why he had left his boots behind. He was not referred to a counselor to determine the source of his rebellion and passive-aggressive anger toward the Marine Corps. No attempt was made to reason with him. There was no getting the other men involved, other than they had only viewed his behavior, and how he was dealt with. This was a simple case of, “If you don’t do as I say, then something bad will happen to you!” Tag your boots!
Now some readers may think the drill instructor was too harsh, that the punishment was cruel and unusual. However, others may think he should have been made to march the whole way back, and, doubtless, some drill instructors may have done just that. But the bottom line is the technique worked. The Marines Corps reinforced its authority, the recruit learned a valuable lesson, the platoon progressed forward, and everyone graduated from basic training as full-fledged marines. One could wonder what kind of marines they would have become if the wayward recruit had gotten away with his scheme and was not punished. I contend the platoon would not have been as dedicated and efficient. Thus, the punishment was appropriate.
With this incident, we see illustrated a principle that is the whole point of this essay: if we want to prevent people from committing certain objectionable behaviors, then we must follow their misdeeds with consequences they do not want to happen. However, this punishment must be used selectively and in an appropriate manner. It’s clear that “tagging your boots” is one form of punishment, and punishment is looked upon as anathema by many in our society. Some even view punishment as evil, and should be avoided at all costs. A few years ago, a young man in Singapore broke one of their laws, and was sentenced to be whipped with canes, causing a tremendous uproar around the world—especially with a huge portion of American society, incensed that Singapore would have the audacity to punish a lawbreaker in such a manner.
Since punishment is looked upon by many as one might view a rattlesnake, the science of psychology might allay those feelings somewhat. Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that learned responses of avoidance and fear have a strong impact on our personality development when we are young. Punishment is essential to the development of these inhibitory emotions, which help control inappropriate behaviors that do not serve the individual and the community well. People with no fear and guilt can be dangerous, because they have no internal “inhibitors” that prevent them from committing certain deeds. Conversely, people with a healthy set of fear and guilt feelings are not likely to break many of society’s rules or laws, because these are feelings people tend to avoid, thus the behavior causing them rarely occurs. Misdeeds committed by those who don’t feel guilty—because they weren’t punished as children in a responsible, loving manner—will be repeated over and over.
Other research shows that, with young boys, it is more important that the father administer such discipline rather than the mother. A mother simply has less power to instill appropriate fear and guilt in a son than does the father—although the mother does have some influence. However, as young boys mature, the social-identity process impels them toward males as role models, and a good father is the best model.
This speaks to a disturbing trend currently in our society, whereby we condone and reward single motherhood, producing legions of young men who do not know how to behave as responsible males, because they adopt males outside their families as role models, males who do not always have their best interests at heart. An adolescent male, loaded with testosterone and aggressive hormones, who has not been taught by significant males the proper roles of guilt, shame, and fear, is trouble on the rise. This capacity for fear and guilt is the end product of a sequence of child-rearing activities, using love-oriented punishment, leading to strong identification with the same sex parent. To put it more simply, the best drill instructors for young men in boot camp are males.
One study showed that many anti-social boys tend to come from those homes where the parents were cold, distant, or absent—not from homes that disciplined and punished with love. Sparing the loving rod of discipline tends to produce incomplete children.
Social psychology clearly shows us the complexity of reward and punishment on the development of children’s moral codes and inhibitions, with their willingness to follow society’s rules. Most criminals are people who have not been taught when they were young how to behave properly. However, parents are not totally to blame here: the schools, TV, literature, peers, gangs, and other aspects of our society share in the upbringing of our children, and often teach and reinforce many negative attitudes and behavior. If one accepts the premise that the total society is to blame for criminal behavior, we are then left with a huge, apparently unsolvable dilemma: that, in a free republic, we can’t seem to unite sufficiently to control all these dysfunctional “teachers” of our children to prevent the production of criminals. So, we throw up our hands in despair and do little to solve the problem.
However, complaining is but a temporary catharsis, engaged in by politicians, the media, and citizens of rhetoric. Sensible people know that once our wayward children reach adulthood, as a practical matter, it’s too late to teach them those lessons they needed to learn as children. The horse is already out of the barn, so to speak.
Thus, with the adult criminal we are left with only one option: we have to do whatever is necessary to prevent people from committing crimes. We can’t go inside the heads of such people and change dysfunctional attitudes at this late date—something that is only occassionaly possible using psychotherapeutic techniques, which are slow and prohibitively expensive, and rarely work. (That old joke applies very well here: How many counselors does it take to change a light bulb? A lot, but the bulb has to really want to change.) Thus for people who continuously break laws, if they have no internal roadmap of fear or guilt to stop them, then we as a society must give them some sort of external fear that will stop them. We have to use the threat of punishment to stop their misdeeds. It’s our primary option. Tag your boots!
In alcohol and drug treatment there is a rule that says that once someone becomes physically addicted, they will never be able to safely drink or use drugs again without suffering serious—and often fatal—consequences. Only when the addict arrives at the point where this reality is true for him or her, is there an improved chance for sobriety. If the addict realizes that continued use of alcohol or drugs will cause that person to die or go crazy, there will then be an improved chance for sobriety. The chemical that the addict used to love and cherish so much, becomes the punisher. Tag your boots!
Next, consider the drug smuggler. Anyone with the proper know-how can fly to south America, buy some cocaine, re-enter the United States, sell the cocaine, and make a huge profit, with very little chance of getting caught. This behavior is going on all the time, as many of my former clients related to me in detail. And these smugglers are killing and ruining more lives than can be imagined—costing our society an enormous price. But the drug dealers do not care, and they feel no guilt or fear. Their motivation is greed, with no concern about the human destruction they are causing. There is no little voice inside them saying, “Don’t do that! It’s wrong!” They do it anyway.
The question has become, how do we stop them? Over the years, we have tried many things that do not work: rehabilitation programs, weak prison terms, confiscation of ill-gotten property, increasing public awareness, and patrolling the nation’s point of entries. And each year the smuggling and drug abuse increases, while the public demands more drugs.
But there’s one thing we haven’t done; we have not made these smugglers and dealers tag their boots. How can we do this? Pass and implement laws that say, “If you smuggle drugs into this country, or sell drugs, we’ll catch you, and when we do you will be quickly prosecuted–and executed.” Then the public can sit back and watch the drug trafficking grind to a halt. Tag your boots.
Next, consider illegal immigration. This problem is now out of control, and the Congress and the President hasn’t the knowledge or will to fix it. Some people abroad have the notion that America is the solution to the world’s problems, with the effect that many people in less fortunate parts of the world want to come to America to improve their lives—and there are many Americans willing to let them come, legal or not. Thus, each day thousands of illegal immigrants slip across our borders. If we continue to allow this, it can bankrupt our social-welfare, educational, and work-related systems. With the world’s population projected to double within the next fifty years, the conditions pushing this illegal immigration trend will only increase, thus the problem is not going away.
To get a true fix on the current immigration situation, look at it from an illegal immigrant’s perspective. Here he is living in Mexico or Central America, living in squalor, with no job, no hope for the future, too many children, and a poor societal support system. His children will have a worse life than him, because the future is grim. The population is exploding out of control, resources are dwindling, and the political leaders are helpless to turn things around. It is evident that everyone will have to do with less. However, he has learned that in America, there exists everything he wants and needs. So, one night he slips across the border—and it doesn’t matter if the border patrol sees him or not, because he knows they are under orders not to use force. Eventually he will get a job from someone who is desperate for cheap labor, who will pay him with cash that will not be reported to the government. And even if he is caught, they will simply load him onto an air-conditioned bus and drive him back across the border, where he will keep trying to cross again. He can’t lose. And once he finally gets settled in America, he can manipulate the system, get some welfare benefits and food stamps, make arrangements to get his family across, and send his children to the wonderful, free schools. What a country!
But one thing bothers him; he heard one border guard being interviewed on the radio, saying that thousands of illegal immigrants cross the border each day, and he is powerless to stop them, because he has been forbidden to use force. All he can do is holler on the bullhorn and tell them to go back home—which they never do because there is no punishment for crossing the border. Then the guard says that if he were allowed to shoot just one immigrant—after fair warning—the immigrant flow would stop. It is certain that if prospective illegal immigrants knew they would be shot if they attempted the crossing, they wouldn’t try it. And if no one tried it, no one would be shot. But there is no boot- tagging in the US Immigration Service.
Already some readers of this essay are squirming and shifting in their chairs. They think this is too extreme—shooting illegal immigrants! What would the carnage be like? Moreover, how do you shoot just one illegal immigrant. America is constitutionally incapable of doing this, given the current state of the American psyche. However, there would be less carnage with boot-tagging than without it, and I am sure we could develop other boot-tagging options to replace the shooting of immigrants. With swift, sure consequences hanging over their heads, most people will quit doing those things they shouldn’t. And those few who continue their bad ways—and are dealt with severely—wouldn’t get much sympathy from most Americans. We will save that for the victims.
A woman friend of mine married a man from Iran, with whom she had three sons. Occasionally they would go back to Iran to visit his relatives. One day she absent-mindedly left her purse, with considerable cash in it, on a store counter for several hours after leaving. When she realized what she had done, she rushed back to the store to retrieve it—and it was still in the same place where she had left it. All her cash and possessions were still within; no one had touched or disturbed it. She said that was not unusual in Iran because there is little thievery. Why? Because in Iran, convicted thieves are punished by having a hand cut off! And she said she didn’t see anyone with missing hands. She concluded that thievery had been abolished in Iran. Tag your boots!
Consider the traffic light. Did you ever notice that everyone stops for the red light: rich, poor, crooks, the mentally ill, drunks, rapists, murderers, middle-class, lower-class, high-class—virtually every- one in societies around the world. You name the group and they all stop for red lights. Why do they obey this rule, yet disregard others that we value, which are just as important? It is because the consequence of going through a red light is a boot-tagging situation, whereby the offender stands a high probability of being smashed into by another vehicle.
A counselor friend of mine tells the story about a relative of his in rural Alabama, who had a husband who was “bad to drink,” as they called drunkenness in that area. For years this alcoholic’s main form of recreation was to get roaring drunk several times a month, then come home and beat up and terrorize his wife and children. His wife had endured this for years because she had been taught by her parents and her church to be subservient and obedient to her husband.
But the day came when her tolerance was exhausted; she could endure it no more. One day he came home drunk again, and began calling her derogatory names–then began hitting her. That did it!
For all those years, she had endured his abuse—but no more! This was it—her pot was boiling over! This enraged woman, suddenly energized to the strength of Wonder Woman by her years of pent-up anger, knocked her staggering husband to the floor with a mighty blow with her fist. Then she jumped on top of him, grabbed him by both ears and began beating his head on the floor, screaming, “You drunken bastard, you no-good-son-of-a-bitch, you lousy excuse of a man. I’m going to kill you!” She beat his head on the floor until he stopped moving, believing she had killed him, until she noticed he was still breathing. He was unconscious.
The next morning he got up from the floor, hung-over, battered, and sick—and puzzled. He remembered nothing of what had happened, having been in an apparent alcoholic blackout. All he knew was that he was hurting and sick. “What happened?” he moaned to his wife. “Feels like a truck ran over me. And my ears hurt real bad!”
His wife looked at him long and hard, the fires of anger still raging in her. “A truck did run over you, and that truck was me. And I ain’t putting up with no more of your drunken ways. I beat you last night ‘til I thought you were dead. And if you ever walk back in this house drunk again, I’ll make sure you’re dead the next time.”
He knew she meant it, because she never said things she didn’t mean. He figured that she would kill him—probably shoot him next time. So, he never drank again. Their marriage survived and they both lived into old age. Tag your boots.
As the next illustration of this principle, consider the law of gravity. As we all know, gravity is a universal constant (Just ask Sir Isaac Newton!)—a force that applies around the world. It does not discriminate, and acts equally on each of us regardless of age, sex, race, religious persuasion, or socio-economic status. No matter who you are, gravity will treat all persons equally. There is no discrimination here for malcontents to whine about. We can jokingly note that there has never been a single case in history where the law of gravity showed any favoritism. All people who journey to the top of the Empire State Building, for instance, and jump off, will be treated equally by gravity. No ifs or buts, if you jump you will be a terrific smash on the street below.
Now consider those times when the reader has been on high places and wondered what it would be like to jump off and soar like a bird. Wouldn’t that be thrilling, we think. Most people have had that experience—especially as children when we’re still exploring our world. We can almost experience the thrill of the free fall. Ah, the trip down would be exhilarating—to which all parachutists and bungee jumpers can testify. But we don’t jump. Why? Because we all know the law of gravity will lead to that fatal stop at the end. Tag your boots.
Several thousand years ago, one of the world’s great spiritual leaders, Moses, saw that his people needed some stricter rules to live by, so he went up on a mountain and came back with God’s Ten Commandments. Much like the Marine drill instructor, there were certain rules that God required of his people. But, alas, most people don’t follow them very well, instead treating them more or less like the Ten Suggestions. We no longer seem to require ourselves and others to obey them. Thus, we’ve lost these ancient tag-your-boots rules.
This leads us to an area that needs consideration: namely those roadblocks, currently emphasized in America, that inhibit us from effectively using punishment as a behavioral control for unwanted deviant behavior. One of the primary roadblocks in these times seems to be the confusing matter of rehabilitation vs. punishment. It has gotten to the point that the dream of rehabilitation has insisted that punishment is old school and is no longer needed. Thus, our laws and legal systems have progressed to the point that capital punishment is cruel and unusual. Reasons abound for this stance: he is a sinner, but deserves our forgiveness; Jesus would forgive him, so who are we not to do so; two wrongs don’t make a right; vengeance is mine, says the Lord; criminal behavior is a symptom of mental illness, so he must be treated rather than punished; punishment doesn’t work, only makes the person angrier; etc.
Many reasons are given not to take harsh action against criminals. The problem with this orientation is that it focuses on the criminal, to the neglect of the victim. However, if a person is murdered, then that life is gone forever, and nothing can be done to bring it back. That leaves us with only the perpetrator left to deal with, and it seems we do not have the stomach to apply appropriate punishment. In fact, we seem to no longer be able to determine just what is appropriate punishment for the different crimes.
It is implied by some religions and belief systems that a murdered victim is okay because he is now in the arms of God, gone to Nirvana, is in the spiritual realm of the next world, is one with the Force—whatever. Well, if any of these theories or beliefs is true—and it is so good for the believer—then logically it must also be good for the non-believer. Under this scenario, even the non-believers will experience the realities of the afterlife—though we would hope they would receive some sort of punishment for their earthly misdeeds.
However, if there is no afterlife—and no one can prove it exists—then no one gets any justice when a murderer is rehabilitated, yet the victim is dead and gone forever, missing out on the remaining time of life, while the murderer continues on. Where is the justice in that? The reality of all this is that we have taken the notion of rehabilitation so far that we no longer punish. We have become so tolerant and “forgiving” that we will now endure the most horrible of atrocities, and do little or nothing about them.
It would seem logical that we should punish all criminals after they commit their crimes, then if they accept their punishment in the correct spirit, with a truly remorseful attitude, by paying appropriate restitution to their victims, at that point we will then consider rehabilitation. To illustrate, I was recently leading a group-counseling session of criminals, all of whom were on probation or parole. They were feverishly discussing some recent changes in the ways prisoners were now going to be treated while incarcerated in Georgia. Their biggest concern was a very selfish one, in that some rehabilitation opportunities and privileges were being curtailed or stopped, and they didn’t think that was fair. They said that removing weight-lifting equipment, limiting TV watching, and decreasing educational opportunities was going to make prisoners angrier and would cause more trouble. At no time was there any concern for the victims of their crimes. When I brought up the notion that prison was a place for punishment for crimes, and that punishment ought to come first, they launched into all kinds of rationalizations, that rehabilitation was the only way to prevent future crimes. They had little understanding of the role of punishment in their lives, and I deduced that they had experienced little appropriately applied punishment for misdeeds when they were young. To them prison was a resting spot on the difficult journey of life—but certainly not a well-timed punishment.
A second roadblock is the principle to love one’s neighbor as yourself, or, turn the other cheek. Philosophically this is a cryptic message, especially to an angry person who has been wronged. It is true that if a man kills my brother, and I allow myself to become possessed with anger and a desire for revenge, then it will hurt me psychologically. Feelings of hate hurt the one who hates, but it is almost impossible to let go of hate without justice. Since most religions and civil laws do not allow citizens to take justice into their own hands, then it is the responsibility of the State to secure justice for the people by administering the appropriate punishment to law-breakers. Simply following one’s religious dictates is not enough. Balancing the scales of justice requires that the church and State each administer their prescribed roles, with the punishment of criminals being the province of the State—with forgiveness (as they are being punished) being the responsibility of the victim’s religious beliefs.
It will be noted, for Christians, that Jesus, before and during his crucifixion, never said that the Romans did not have the authority to kill him, nor did he excuse the two thieves crucified along with him by condemning the Romans’ legal authority Thus, it is clear that Jesus recognized Rome’s authority to punish (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars). So it would seem that we’ve boiled it down to justice versus love, and that seems to be the sticking point in many people’s minds. And since these concepts appear to be mutually exclusive, most people jump on one side or the other, while berating the opposite side for being so stupid or unfeeling.
To resolve this dilemma ask yourself this question: Am I showing my love if I allow you to break the laws and do nothing to punish you? The following is what is meant by the principle of loving your neighbor as yourself: Mr. Lawbreaker, society cares about you and respects you as a person, and we want you to have as much individual freedom as possible to pursue your own happiness, but if your pursuit conflicts with your neighbor’s rights, then our legal authorities have the right and duty to punish you appropriately, and we will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that you don’t detract from your neighbors rights. If done properly, this will re-establish your relationship with your neighbor. That is the obligation of the society at large. Whether you get forgiveness and love as a neighbor from me is my burden under my relationship with God.
This religious philosophizing is well and good, and we can take whatever position we like, but our country is not a theocracy; it’s a republic run by secular laws, representing Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, heathens, Satanists, or any other religion one chooses to follow. So. In practice, our nation of laws is the product of the thinking of our Founding Fathers, following a variety of beliefs, sometimes with those beliefs suspended, in order that compromises can be reached to enact laws necessary for us to function in this non-spiritual world. Jesus recognized that these differences are not easily bridged, especially when he talked about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s. This is a critical distinction that we conveniently keep ignoring, but these two worlds are different, and there will always be a wall between them.
Though this secular world is separate from the spiritual one, we nonetheless need to keep them in harmony with each other. Things need to be kept moral and on course. We do not need immoral laws, but we cannot allow religions to impose theological beliefs that conflict with our constitutionally-based laws. Without this congruence our society will eventually dissolve. Religion does not have all the answers needed to effectively deal with the practical, material world, which is the reason we have a secular government as opposed to a theocracy. In this world, the majority of our efforts are spent dealing with matter, information, facts and people–hopefully guided by logic, reason, science, laws and religion. Until we discover better ways to inhibit and prevent negative behavior from our misbehaving brothers and sisters, we must make them tag their boots.
There are endless examples of not tagging our boots, such as parents who don’t set limits with their children, resulting in the kids subsequently walking all over them; welfare agencies that dole out benefits without adequate requirements or consequences; a judicial system that emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment, and gives psychobabble excuses to criminal behavior; speed limits on our highways that are rarely enforced, and to which no one pays attention; pampered athletes for whom a contract is always something to be renegotiated without fulfilling the original terms, with owners letting them get away with it, and then complaining about the selfishness of the players; politicians who never say what they mean, but always looking good when lying, with the electorate voting them back into office anyway, and then complaining how crooked they are; tobacco company executives who, in spite of all the scientific evidence to the contrary, and a half million deaths per year, continued to lie about the dangers of smoking, yet most of us do nothing and continue to use their products; and millions of couples taking marriage vows before God, the law, and their friends about loving and honoring each other their entire lives, yet divorcing at the slightest provocations—with the children suffering for it. The list is endless.
So, where do we go from here? As you may have already guessed, it is too late to administer loving, child-rearing discipline after the child is grown. Therefore, we have a sizable number of spoiled, undisciplined, whining, lawbreaking people who are causing this society enormous problems. With them, it is too late to instill the control mechanisms of guilt and fear, which would impel them to obey our laws. However, while punishment will not change their psyches, it will quickly and surely stop certain behaviors in most cases. In a perfect world, we’d like to raise all our children to become model citizens of their own volition, but that is rarely possible. So we have no choice but to make them tag their boots.

THE END