Liberals adore force. While they hate any firearms they do not wield, and they abhor the notion of self-defense and self-preservation (because leftist ideology is fundamentally self-destructive), they exult in making the other fellow toe the line. From cradle to grave, every waking moment of a man’s life must be controlled if that man is to make the “right” choices as dictated by a lib.
Leftists believe that individual freedom is a threat to all and that freedom of action must be curtailed. The means to make you do as they wish is violence, codified in complex laws and regulations and enforced by the jackbooted thugs of an all-powerful state.
What better symbol is there for liberal violence than the “Occupy” movement, endorsed by President Obama and plagued by rape, disease, defecation and vile threats of assault and murder? These marching, mindless, ravening hordes, these entitled thugs, epitomize where and to what lib rule is driving us.
All lib violence has as its common denominator the desire to make you do something against your will. Democrats and left-wingers salivate at the thought of making you do what they say. They will impoverish you, imprison you, ruin you as totally and as thoroughly as they can, if you oppose them. This is the very definition of initiated force, a concept that runs counter to every instinct and consequence of a free society. It is for this reason that political liberalism, accompanied as it always is by the irresistible compulsion to force your fellow men to obey you, is completely antithetical to the United States Constitution.
Said differently, leftists are un-American, un-patriotic, liberty-hating despots whose ideology is diametrically opposed to the ideals on which the United States was founded. All of this is rooted in liberals’ willingness to use violence to bring you to heel. The average Democrat cannot draw breath without pondering how he might put his boot on your neck.
Last week’s Technocracy concerned your nature as a discrete biological entity. The ideas contained in that column are not original; they are the product of libertarian philosophers both contemporary and ancient. One of those philosophers was a woman born in Russia who took the name “Ayn Rand.” Rand, who owed much to Aristotle and who reinvented several philosophical wheels over the course of her writing, offered a coherent argument on human beings, reason and the immorality of initiating force.
Rand believed initiating force – choosing to move a relationship outside the realm of reason into the realm of physical violence – was immoral among rational human beings. She based this assertion on the self-evident fact that your faculty of reason, your ability to integrate the data of your senses into concepts (from which you make decisions regarding goal-directed actions), is your only means of long-term survival.
You are not born preprogrammed; there is no other means of acquiring and applying knowledge. Psychic insight is unreliable. Religious revelation is subjective. Instinct tells you that you need certain things, but not specifically what they are or how to get them.
When you acknowledge this, you of necessity accept that you do not have the right to initiate force. All force has a physical component, but this does not mean all manifestations of force are some form of striking or restraining someone. Theft is force, because it deprives people of assets rightfully theirs. Fraud is force, because it is a form of theft.
All manifestations of force are, essentially, the demand that a person act against his or her reason. Humans can resolve conflict in only two ways: reason or force, persuasion or coercion. If you cannot persuade someone through reason and you force them to comply with your wishes, you contradict the recognition of reason as your means of survival.
If Democrats cannot persuade the voters to do as they wish, they use the courts or executive orders to enforce their demands – demands that run contrary to individual reason. Pointing at your citizens the gun of government mandate, telling them they’ll do as you say no matter how injurious to those citizens are your dictates, is violence. It is the kind of violence that makes libs insufferably smug when they hold political power.
Forcing a citizen to act against his own interests, as he rationally concludes them to be, contradicts a fundamental principle of survival as a rational being – that reason is your means and your method. This action, the initiation of force, can also be coupled to last week’s discussion of your discrete biological nature. If you cannot live another person’s life, you cannot presume to force them to comply with your wishes. Your inalienable rights to your person and to the results of your labor are violated when force is initiated against you.
Refusing to initiate force does not mean, of course, that you cannot use force morally in your defense. When force is used against you, there is no recourse but to respond in kind and to superior measure. By definition, you cannot reason with someone who has rejected rational discourse.
Retaliatory force may also be pre-emptive. In the presence of a credible threat of force, you are not obligated to permit that threat to be carried out before you react to it. You may, morally if not legally, intercept and prevent the threat if a reasonable human being would conclude that force was imminent and harm was likely.
Democratic tyranny knows none of these philosophical justifications. Liberal force is neither retaliatory nor pre-emptive. It is not rational. It is never moral. Liberals use force for the sole reason of molding and shaping an unwilling public according to their self-destructive, statist ideology. They are happy to lie, to defraud, to steal in making their case, but if necessary they are just as happy simply to make you comply.
No matter how you are harmed, you will obey, or the liberals will see to it you end destitute, imprisoned, or dead. These are actions they will gladly initiate … and they’ll expect you to thank them for doing it.