The Use of Force
In the past, with my infatuation with the Second Amendment and the right of self-preservation, I was often viewed as someone who enjoyed thinking of violence and the utilization of force. At the time, such a reputation humored me, considering it seemed so romantic and dramatic. Now, it doesn’t.
Violence is something to be hated. Violence on even the most limited scale is simply the end result of evil — I despise its existence and love its absence. Death, killing, destruction and carnage are not the goal of mankind. Despair is not the existence we ought to desire. Peace, happiness, love, kindness — these are the values that give meaning to life, and these are the things which man wishes for himself.
Of course, most agree with this principle, at least theoretically. Why bring up such an obvious and redundant point? After reviewing the nature of the common arguments between the liberal/conservative/libertarian forces in the political spectrum, it shocks me to discover what appears to be a delusion among most people in the world — even most Americans.
It is a delusion that takes a lie and subjugates in a masquerade of truth. It’s a delusion that appears to support the values we all love and hold dear, yet in reality causes the destruction of the realization of our values.
We desire peace. We desire happiness, and the absence of any need for coercion. We seek to be free, to be able to do what we want, to live in comfort. What, then, is this delusion that masquerades as accomplishing these goals yet actually works against them?
The delusion is one of a social nature, one that most people never consider. It is one which we hear much rhetoric about, via the media, politicians and even casual discussion. It is the source of great amusement, great fascination and for many, much thought and work.
The delusion is that violence, threats, guns, bullets and cages are necessary when dealing with non-violent people. That violence is the answer to non-violent problems. It’s not.
Make no mistake: to imprison a non-violent person is the greatest wrong. To imprison a man because he is homosexual is the greatest evil. To imprison a person for doing anything to another person after both have consented is the greatest evil. To threaten a man with chains and cages because he utters a an English word is the greatest evil. To threaten a poor woman with violence because she does not wish to pay for the insurance of a man is the greatest evil. To even consider the imprisonment of a man because he agreed to pay a man wages lower than what society deemed “livable” is the greatest evil. Violence against the non-violent is the greatest evil.
It is easy to think, “Ah! There is a horrible problem. Why, there ought to be something done! I support a policy by men in suits who control men in uniforms with guns at their sides to force everyone to go along with my idea!”
It is easy to think that force is easier than reasoning.
It is easier to think that force is quicker than intellectual conversion.
It is easy to think that a man does not have rights for himself, but should give up his things for the (rights?) of others.
It is easy to take a contradictory position regarding violence, and to say that violence is justified in a “case-by-case” analysis, when we actually mean at whim.
It is easy to support state action against people who do not use force on others.
But it’s wrong.
I own myself. I own my arms, my legs, my body and most importantly, I own my mind. You own yourself, your arms, your legs, your body and most importantly, you own your mind. Since you own you and I own myself, we both individually have an individual responsibility to ourselves and to ourselves only — I do not have the right to paint another man’s car without his permission, nor to shave his head without his permission, nor to steal his food, nor to take potshots at him. Neither do I have the right to put him in a cage because he says words I don’t like, or because he does “naughty” things with his wife, or even with another man.*
It’s easy to think that government policies should “make society moral” or should “save the economy.” But they shouldn’t. The only time we should be violent against others is to prevent violence, because they are acting without authority (morality) it is not against authority (morality) to use force against them.
Violence is only justified when in self-defense. That’s it.
But what could be my point? In what area does this philosophy affect us? Government, party politics, conservativism, liberalism, statism. I’m referring to any political theory that says that homosexuality should be outlawed, or that drugs, prostitution, low-paying jobs should be stopped with guns. Guns are not the answer. But then what is the answer to life’s non-violent problems?
The answer is in the mind. If you believe something to be wrong or detrimental, yet not violent — use reason, man’s greatest tool. Use persuasion. When you can’t persuade, move on. Not all want to be like you. Don’t force them to be. If it hurts them, that’s their decision, their harm — not your responsibility.
Violence is the anti-mind. The anti-mind is the anti-life. Violence is anti-life. I support life, peace and happiness. I support peace.
These words aren’t very politically correct, I understand this. Most disagree with them, I understand this. I can’t understand, however, the reasoning that “sin” should be stopped at gun point. I can’t understand, however, the philosophy that in order to “secure” higher living standards we are forced to conquer successful people and threaten them with guns and chains because they made an agreement with their workers that we happen to dislike.
What are we to do? To struggle against the greatest evils. Struggle against the idea that man should be violently forced to conform to society or religious standards, struggle against the idea that guns and chains should be our response to evil, rather than peaceful persuasion. But the struggle is not easy. The peaceful are outnumbered many to one.
In the end, remember the final words of John Galt in Ayn Rand’s epic, “Atlas Shrugged”:
“Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it’s yours. But to win it requires your total dedication and a total break with the world of your past, with the doctrine that man is a sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride. Fight for the essence of that which is man: for his sovereign rational mind.”
__________________________
*If ever faced with someone who believes sexual immoralities should be punished, ask them some thought-provoking questions regarding their mental sex life. They are hypocrites.
You’re right, Shaun. Violence is terrible; government violence, legal plunder, is worse.
Mean people Suck. (As the bumpersticker says)
Debbie Downer time. I dont quite buy this line:
“We desire peace. We desire happiness, and the absence of any need for coercion. We seek to be free, to be able to do what we want, to live in comfort. What then is the delusion that masquerades as accomplishing these goals yet actually works against them?”
“We,” the American people tend to desire security. For security, “we” would sacrifice our peace (war on a battle tactic and not an ideological group), we would sacrifice our happiness (preferring the security of a 9 to 5 job to adventure) and “we” would certainly allow pretty much any form of coercion to assure our security (especially if it involves taxing those greedy rich people).
Oh…and if we truly owned ourselves, we could commit the ultimate form of violence–suicide.
You claim that the greatest evil is to imprison someone because he is homosexual. We seem to agree 100% that homosexuality should not be criminalized. Yet, I doubt criminalizing homosexuality — or heterosexuality — is “the greatest evil” even if evil on all accounts. For example, the greatest evil might be murder, not least a hate crime (e.g., murdering someone because of their sexuality). This I think is a far greater evil than imprisoning someone for an act they didn’t do or for an act that should not be criminal. Therefore, a central argument seems wrong.
Moreover, a real worry with your picture is that we would all (seemingly) agree that the state is involved *only* in response to acts of violence. Thus, we imprison murderers and rapists, but spare most everyone else. This seems false. For example, after someone’s death a thief enters the estate and steals several items of value. Suppose that this crime left the estate in pristine condition otherwise: no doors/windows broken, etc. Did an act of violence occur? One view of the harm done is that the owner was harmed in having valuables stolen. However, it is difficult to conceive how we might harm the dead as they no longer have interests (at least on one view, not necessarily my own). So no violence against anyone (alive) seems to have taken place. However, it seems nuts for the state not to be involved, least of all fail to criminalize such thefts.
What is more, violence is a contested concept…and not all acts of violence are acts we want to forbid, whether it be dangerous driving (again: no victims), etc.
Thom,
I’ll agree that the greatest evil is not the imprisonment of homosexuals or the other things listed in the post. That was simply me being overly melodramatic in order to prove a point regarding my disgust.
That said, by violence/coercion/force, the physical taking of that which one does not own most certainly would fall under that category. Not all force leaves behind broken windows.
Anyways, thanks for the comment — healthy disagreement is incredibly beneficial for understanding any issue further. =)
Shaun- I found you through the Humanist Symposium on Letters from a Broad.
Good, thoughtful article. You are young and idealistic. You are the ones who lead the way.
Society changes slowly. There will always be vestiges of medieval thinking which linger in our “modern” culture and traditions. However, I do think there is progress toward your ideals. Torture and violence are used much less in Western societies than they used to. Homosexuality is slowly becoming accepted and decriminalized. (unfortunately some progress has dwindled with the backward, fundamentalist attitudes prevailing now)
Keep speaking your ideals.
take care,
David