do you believe we should not use force* against someone that does not wish to use force against anyone?



i could argue that the following notes could be implied in the word "against" in the above question, but to be explicit/clear:

by "force" i mean without consent of the other person. therefore, this does not apply to things such as contact sports, bdsm, or even outright battles between parties in which ***each individual*** involved consents-

also, for those who would object something like: "if someone is about to step off the sidewalk and they don't see the speeding vehicle that would hit them am i using force against them if i grab them or push them so they don't get run over?" i would say that a rule of thumb is if that person would approve your action it does not constitute "force against." HOWEVER, caveat about this rule of thumb: if you use force against someone (for example to keep them off drugs or whatever) because you genuinely believe "they are blind to the perils! one day they will thank me for it" gets muddy and very hubris-like of you. the criterion should be that if the person explicitly disagrees with you, you should not use force against them.

finally: "is picking up my child or dragging them by hand because we've got to go home use of force against someone?"
this also gets muddy. in an evolved society, this question would not arise, as the adults and the children would have a type of connection we have not developed yet. in a society of law (which i argue is not an evolved society), the law says if the child is a minor, the parent/guardian decides. in practice, i would recommend that the adult and the child have and grow a relationship based on reciprocal understanding combined with a grip on reality.