#8 Force and Coercion - Why the initiation of force is evil - It renders a man's mind useless.
Force and Coercion - Why the initiation of force is evil - It renders a man's mind useless.
In a political context, freedom has only one meaning -- freedom from the initiation of force by other men.
Only by the initiation of force can a man be: prevented from speaking, or robbed of his possessions, or brutally murdered. Only by the initiation of force can a man's rights be violated. Only the initiation of force against a man can stop his mind, thus rendering it useless as a means of survival.
It is for this reason -- that force renders a man's mind useless -- that every man has the right to self-defense -- the right to use force to retaliate against those who first start the use of force, but never may one morally initiate it.
The use of force, in and of itself, is not evil; but, to initiate (start) force is evil. To use force in retaliation -- in self- defense against those who initiate it -- is not a moral option, but a moral requirement. A moral man has nothing to gain when a man tries to kill him, but he has much to lose if he does not defend himself. For this reason it is right, just, and proper to use force in retaliation and self-defense. Contrary to the vile doctrines of the pacifists, force used in self-defense is a species of the good.
Government has a monopoly on the use of physical force
Government is an agency which has a monopoly on the use of physical force.
This legal power -- to use physical force -- only may be used for one purpose: to retaliate against those who initiate force, according to objectively defined laws.
Never is this power to be used to initiate force, but government is only permitted to retaliate and defend against those who initiate force
A rule not of men, but a rule of objective laws
To ensure that no despot -- whether that despot be a single dictator, a political pressure-group, or a befuddled "democratic" majority of the moment -- may usurp the powers of government, and turn its machinery upon any of its citizens, each and every aspect of government action is codified, and carried out, according to objectively defined laws.
In a free society each and every man lives under a rule of law, as opposed to a whim-ridden rule of men. The rule of law has only one proper purpose: to protect the rights of the smallest minority that has ever existed -- the individual.
Such a body of integrated, codified, and non-contradictory laws form objective legislation, which hold a man innocent until he can be proven guilty, as opposed to a library of irrational regulations which hold a man guilty until he can somehow prove himself innocent, to the gratification of some misanthrope able to gain a foothold in public office.
The supreme legal document of a proper society is the constitution -- a citizen's protection against both private criminals and public officials who seek to imitate the criminal's methods.
The purpose of the constitution is not to grant unlimited power to government, or to limit the rights of an individual, but to limit the power of government to its only valid purpose: the protection of individual rights. In other words, a citizen is free to do whatever he is not explicitly forbidden (under a proper legal system the only act forbidden is the violation of the rights); whereas, a state official is only allowed to carry out what is explicitly permitted.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home